ORAL ORDER NAVIN SINHA, J. Heard Mr. Ratan Kumar Sinha, Advocate who appears in person and Counsel for the State and the Municipal Corporation. 2. In this Public Interest Litigation filed by a practising lawyer of the Court, the grievance is with regard to open drain and sewerage with excreta floating from the same in front of his house. 3. Learned Counsel appearing in person submits that the locality in question known as Mahesh Nagar is situated within the Municipal limits of Patna lying in Ward No. 7. We are informed that the area was never developed by the Urban Development Department or Municipal Corporation as a residential locality by way of carving out plots, laying of roads, street lights, drainage and sewerage etc. The limited number of residents by their own efforts long years ago constructed a drain for flow of water and sewerage. Gradually five blocks of apartments each of four storeys were sanctioned by the erstwhile Patna Regional Development Authority (P.R.D.A.) without corresponding civic amenities and have been constructed over the years. The self constructed drainage by the residents was meant to cater to a smaller population and has become non-functional with the increased load of civic occupation. Requests to the Municipal Corporation for redressal of the grievance elicited no response leading to institution of the application. The lack of basic civic amenities and open flow of sewerage water along with excreta affects the fundamental rights of the citizens to a pollution free environment, hygiene, in all its aspects apart from other civic amenities. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the Municipal Corporation states that the Executive Officer, New Capital Division inspected the place on 28.8.2013 after the writ petition was filed. It acknowledges that the drain was very old and of limited capacity measuring 6”x9” constructed about 30 years ago when there were very few houses. It was not clear as to who had constructed the drain. It is but a tacit admission that the respondents completely neglected urban planning in the area within the capital city. Presently on both sides of the road there were seven apartments and thirty three big buildings. There was no adequate drainage facility. A proper drain was required to be constructed for which estimate has been prepared. Since sufficient funds would be required it was not possible to do so with the limited resources available with the Corporation. Presently on both sides of the road there were seven apartments and thirty three big buildings. There was no adequate drainage facility. A proper drain was required to be constructed for which estimate has been prepared. Since sufficient funds would be required it was not possible to do so with the limited resources available with the Corporation. Appropriate request has been made to the Urban Development Department for funds or for development under the Chief Minister’s Town Development Scheme through the District Magistrate. The supplementary counter affidavit contains a letter dated 17.12.2013 written by the Municipal Commissioner to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department that an estimate had been prepared for Rs. 28,11,900/- . Administrative sanction may be granted and the money sanctioned from the State Plan Head. 5. Another counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department. It states that no administrative approval was required. Unspent money was lying with the Corporation. 6. Urban planning which includes provision of basic civic amenities like drainage and sewerage is the larger responsibility of the Urban Development Department first. We are unable to understand how the Urban Development Department headquartered in the capital city did not do any urban planning and permitted illegal uncontrolled and unregulated growth of the capital city allowing constructions turning the capital city into an urbanized slum. The counter affidavit of the Urban Development Department is unfortunate and leaves us in shock. Urban planning is then executed through the Municipal Corporation. In the present case both the Urban Development Department and the Municipal Corporation are not at issue on the complete absence of urban planning and laying drainage and sewerage in the locality concerned. We are hardly concerned with the issues between the Urban Development Department and the Municipal Corporation. The Urban Development Department has not disputed the cost estimate prepared, let alone the need for providing civic amenities. The issue whether the money is lying unspent with the Corporation or the plea of the Corporation it requires fund from the State or from the Chief Minister’s Town Development Scheme are matters between the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Municipal Corporation. 7. The issue whether the money is lying unspent with the Corporation or the plea of the Corporation it requires fund from the State or from the Chief Minister’s Town Development Scheme are matters between the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Municipal Corporation. 7. We issue a joint mandamus to the Secretary, Urban Development Department and the Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation to co-ordinate between themselves and to ensure that under all circumstances the actual work commences within a period of two months from the date of receipt and or production of a copy of the order. The answerability for compliance rests jointly with both. The works must then be completed in another two months time positive considering the urgency. 8. Before concluding we must take note of a distressing state of affairs in the capital city revealed in the 7th State of India report, Excreta matters, prepared by the Centre for Science and Environment, at a Seminar held on May 25, 2012 at the local A.N. College, attended by the Minister, Urban Development, Senior officials of the Bihar Urban Development Corporation, Bihar Jal Parishad, P.H.E.D. and the State Pollution Control Board. Only 10% of the capital city’s population is connected to a sewerage network. 90% of sewerage excreta is pumped into drains and rivers, to percolate as underground water, pumped up again by the Corporation as untreated as water for human consumption. This writ petition raises very important issues for right to life under Article 21 of fundamental right as it includes the right to a hygienic pollution free environment coupled with duties of the respondents under Article 39 (e) and (f), Article 47 of the Directive principles of State policy. We would like to be believe that the respondent will give the matter the urgent attention it deserves. 9. The application is disposed.