11

Special Purpose Urban Authorities

Urban local governments mainly comprise municipal corporations and municipal councils to administer the local affairs and provide civic amenities for the well-being of the citizens of their respective areas. The former are constituted by the state governments concerned for bigger towns having a minimum population of three lakh and the latter for cities/towns that are not too big. These are periodically elected on the basis of adult franchise and perform the functions assigned to them under the statutes. But there also exist some other urban institutions in the municipal areas that are required to perform some of the municipal functions like improvement and development of the towns, housing, water supply, sewage and pollution control. Such urban institutions are: (i) Improvement Trusts, (ii) Housing Development Boards including urban estates, (iii) Water Supply and Sewerage Boards, and (iv) Pollution Control Boards.

These institutions are located in the urban areas and are a mix of single-purpose and multipurpose organizations. A single purpose agency is called as such because it addresses itself to the realization of a single purpose specified in the concerned statute under which it is set up, whereas multi-purpose agencies cater to more than one purpose. Of the above-mentioned urban authorities, the housing board and urban estates for instance can be termed as single purpose authorities, while the other institutions are multipurpose bodies.

Reasons for the Creation of Special Purpose Agencies

The reasons usually advanced for the creation of these urban institutions and specific purpose agencies are that: (i) the municipal authorities have neither the necessary administrative machinery nor resources to tackle the problems arising out of rapid urban growth;¹ (ii) the rules and by-laws of the municipalities stand in the way of shouldering responsibilities attached to the developmental activities;² (iii) the municipal corporations and municipal committees are by and large centres of inefficiency, corruption and political nepotism, most of these are bankrupt and cannot in any way tackle big problems; ³ (iv) certain activities are so technical and complex that they require concentrated attention and specialized effort, which the municipal bodies are not in a position to afford, already overburdened, as they are, with numerous functions.⁴

In short, the creation of uni- or multi-functional agencies is justified on the plea of the inefficiency of local authorities and their being inadequately equipped to perform these tasks.⁵

The state governments, therefore, have been setting up special authorities to perform functions of a certain type. For example, in Chennai, the state government has set up a number of special purpose authorities like the Slum Clearance Board, the Housing Board and the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority. Uttar Pradesh has a Housing Board and a Water Supply and Drainage Board for the entire state. In Delhi, there is Delhi Development Authority and in Kolkata, there is the Kolkata Development Authority and similarly in Punjab and Haryana, Improvement Trusts, Housing Board, Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Pollution Control Board, etc. have been set up which have been assigned the tasks customarily falling within the sphere of action of municipal governments.

Improvement Trusts

It is the local governments’ accepted responsibility to plan for the improvement and development of the areas under their jurisdiction, but with the tremendous increase in the growth of urban areas, as a result of rapid urbanization, being too pre-occupied with the maintenance of civic services and lacking adequate financial resources and necessary technical personnel, it has been felt that they are incapable of meeting the challenges of planning and execution of major urban development projects and therefore the task of improvement and development has to be entrusted to a separate agency such as Important Trusts.

The agency charged with the responsibility of improvement of cities and towns was first created in India in 1864 and it bore the name of the Sanitary Commission. In that year sanitary commissions were set up in Bengal, Bombay and Madras as a response to the recommendations of the Royal Sanitary Commission, which had been appointed in 1859 to give advice and assistance in all matters relating to public health and sanitation, to advise on the sanitary improvement of native towns and on prevention and mitigation of epidemic diseases. Bombay Improvement Trust was the first to be established, in 1898, when the outbreak of bubonic plague in 1896 had compelled the government to adopt measures for the removal of unsanitary dwellings, prevention of over-crowding and carrying out much needed sanitary improvements in the city with a view to securing better living conditions for the people. The Calcutta Improvement Trust was set up in 1912. Encouraged by the examples of Bombay and Calcutta Improvement Trusts, other provinces also began setting up such agencies. The Punjab Town Improvement Act was passed in 1922, but it could not be given effect to until 1936 when the first Improvement Trust was created at Lahore, then Capital ofjoint Punjab. At present Punjab and Haryana have 21 and 11 improvement trusts, respectively.

Constitution

An improvement trust comprises a chairman and officers appointed by the state government and representatives of concerned municipal body. The improvement trusts in Punjab, for instance, consist of a chairman, three officers serving under the state government, one of whom should be a town planner, the other an officer not below the rank of an extra assistant commissioner and the third an engineer not below the rank of an executive engineer taken from the Buildings and Roads Branch or the Public Health Branch of the Department of Public Works of the state government, three members of the municipal committee or the corporation as the case may be, and three persons, one of whom should be a member of the scheduled caste, all to be appointed by the government. The chairman and the members are appointed for a renewable term of two years. The higher personnel of the Trust belonging to the provincialized services of the Improvement Trusts are recruited and controlled by the state government whereas the lower employees are recruited and controlled by the trust.

Functions

An improvement trust is a statutory body constituted for the specific purpose of city improvement. Its functions include improvement and expansion of the city, opening up of the congested areas, provision of open spaces for purposes of ventilation and sanitation, improving building sites, laying out or altering of streets, re-housing for poor and working classes, acquisition of land to re-house persons displaced by execution of schemes, control of speculation in land, particularly of sub-urban one.

Finances

Sources of revenue of the improvement trusts are sale of land, share of stamp duty on transfer of immovable property, betterment fees, contributions by municipal committee or corporation, borrowing and grants- in-aid by the state government.

Criticism

Improvement trusts, are criticized mainly on the following grounds:

1. Their setting up for the performance of municipal functions, and being dominated by bureaucrats is nothing short of an assault on the philosophy of local government.
2. There is no prima facie case for constituting adhoc bodies for the execution of town planning and improvement schemes, though there is a great deal to be said for the government exercising a certain measure of control over the preparation and execution of schemes for improvement and development and to maintain a separate development fund and to distinguish clearly between its capital and revenue accounts. Yet there is no necessity for creating a semi-officials body for carrying out the schemes of improvement.⁶
3. A committee of the municipal council can, with the assistance of a few co-opted engineering, public health and financial experts, be trusted to do work as efficiently as any adhoc body especially constituted for the purpose.
4. In the eyes of the local government, a special purpose agency like the improvement trust, which takes away one of its functions and, what is more, which is financed in part by it, carries the image of a trespasser.⁷
5. In the words of Rural–Urban Relationship Committee, it has been gradually realized that Improvement Trusts engaged in town improvement in a limited piecemeal and haphazard way, without attempting to conceive the overall plan and development requirements of the city in the regional context cannot meet the requirement of town planning and development.⁸
6. They have not proved successful as they were functioning more or less as colonizers for new areas without caring for the core areas and the impact of their schemes on the services in the city as a whole.
7. They lacked long-term perspective and had reduced themselves to a position of a ‘department concerned with constructing housing colonies without ensuring adequate provision of civic and social services for the new areas.’⁹ It is a mistake to style Improvement Trusts as local bodies because they lack the characteristics of a local body, which are, first, that they are composed of representatives elected by the local people, and second, that they undertake the programmes and determine their priorities on the basis of the felt needs of the citizens.
8. The improvement trusts on the other hand are stuffed with politicians and bureaucrats nominated by the government, accountable to none but the government.
9. Financially, too, they are not viable. They do not have adequate financial resources to undertake development projects and have to resort to borrowings which they are not in a position to pay back on time inviting penal interest.
10. Their image with the public has been that of poor performance because of allotment of residential and commercial sites on concessional rates out of their discretionary quota by the ministers to their favourites, time-consuming process in the allotment of plots and inordinate delay in delivering their possession to the allottees, non-development of the concerned areas for years on end, exorbitant prices as compared to the compensation paid for the acquisition of land, red tapism, inefficiency, and, above all, rampant corruption.
11. The relationship between the representatives of the municipal committee or corporation and the bureaucrats as members of the improvement trusts has been that of alienation and hostility as the former believe that their rights have been usurped by the latter.

The remedy for this malady could be found in the merger of the improvement trust with the concerned city corporations and their amalgamation with the housing board in the case of other towns, as the aims and objects of both the organizations are more or less similar.¹⁰

A provision to this effect exists in the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 which reads: ‘The state government may be notification abolish an improvement trust from such date as may be specified in the notification and all its assets and liabilities shall stand transferred to and vested in the Board.’ The Act further provides that even during its existence, if so directed by the state government, the improvement trusts may function as agents of the Board in respect of any scheme and shall for the execution of the scheme, work under the direction and control of the Board. Alternatively, the state government may dissolve the improvement trust and consequently all properties, funds and dues which are vested in or realizable by the trust and the chairman, respectively, shall vest in and be realizable by the municipal committee of the town concerned and all liabilities which are enforceable against the trust shall be enforceable only against the concerned municipal committee. Accordingly, the improvement trusts had been or are being abolished or transferred into the new development authorities. For instance, the Bombay Improvement Trust was abolished in 1937 and its function devolved on the corporation itself. Similarly, the Madras Improvement Trust was amalgamated in 1958 with the Housing Board, which had been formed in Tamil Nadu in 1956. The Kanpur Improvement Trust was replaced by the Kanpur Development Board in 1945 and with the establishment of Nagar Mahapalikas (municipal corporations) in KAVAL cities in 1959, this Board and the improvement trusts in Kanpur, Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra, and Lucknow were altogether abolished. The concerned municipal corporations are now empowered to perform planning and development functions.

Housing Development Boards

Housing is a basic human right and necessity and providing reasonable shelter to all is a global problem. In the words of Javier Perezde Cuellar, former UN Secretary General:

Homelessness was a growing global problem affecting the rich and poor countries. If unsolved the problem poses a threat, both immediate and long term to the welfare of the peoples and development proposals of the international community as a whole, in most of the developing countries we see the twin forces of rapid population growth and increasing urban poverty converging into a crisis which may assume monumental proportions in the coming decades. Only action now, concerted, bold and imaginative, can help relieve the current pressure and avert the future shock. Let us bear in mind that a society is judged not so much by the standard attained by its most affluent and privileged members as by the quality of life which it is able to assure for its weakest citizens.”¹¹

Even the most developed countries like the USA and USSR are facing a shortage of housing stock. The problem of homelessness also exists in the most affluent country, Canada, where the homeless have been demonstrating for homes. A fraction of the people in such affluent communities is forced to live in ghet- toes because possessing a decent house is beyond their means. The situation in the Third World countries is more alarming.

Position in India

1. In India, nearly two-thirds of the population lives below the poverty line and more than one million are shelterless. From nine million units in 1951, the shortage of housing stock in India had increased to about 25 million in 1985. In 1971, about 10.4 million units were identified as unserviceable dwellings but these are still being used by those who cannot afford alternative accommodation.¹²
2. Another distressing factor is the existence of slums in sub-human conditions, where there is no provision for drinking water or toilets, and other basic amenities are also pathetically lacking. The First Five Year Plan stressed the need for slums clearance but later it was observed that slum-dwellers did not prefer better housing because of non-availability of employment at or near the new housing location. That is why emphasis has now been shifted from relocation and removal of slums to upgradation of slums.
3. There is also a need to build houses which are less costly and suited to our economic environment.
4. Finding funds is an important factor of housing policies. Investment in housing involves both public and private institutions. The existing agencies like HUDCO and LIC are, therefore, being strengthened, and housing cooperatives and building societies are being encouraged to accelerate building activity because providing shelter to all requires massive efforts on the part of government, housing finance bodies, cooperative and private builders.
5. United Nations had declared 1987 as ‘International Year of Shelter for the Homeless’ and reminded and warned the nations that any inertia in this regard can create an alarming situation threatening social and political stability. Late Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India was seized of the problem and had observed: ‘We have always laid special emphasis on the provision of housing for the poor. The new 20-Point Programme (1986) lays particular emphasis on housing for the poor people along with provisions of basic facilities.’¹³ In the words of Ms Mohsina Kidwai, former Minister of Urban Development, Government of India, ‘Housing is high on our list of priorities. The magnitude of the problem would need innovative strategies, mobilization and utilization of resources. The government of India has set up a National Housing Bank with initial capital outlay of Rs 100 crore (1987–88) to facilitate availability of housing finance.’¹⁴

For meeting the growing demand for housing, the Planning Commission in the First Five Year Plan had recommended the setting up by the central government, of agencies to subsidize construction of houses and the central government had, in turn, stressed on the setting up of housing boards at the state level also. Accordingly, the Government of India had established Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) in 1971 with the prime objective of providing shelter to the poor. Up to 1988, it had promoted over 2.5 million housing units in the country, over 90 per cent of which were for the economically weaker sections and low income groups. These achievements though impressive in themselves are insignificant in relation to the magnitude of the problem being faced by the poor in the country. The achievements of HUDCO in real terms have been: i creating awareness and sharing experiences about the complex nature of the shelter problems and their solution, (ii) improving availability of sites and promoting self-built affordable housing related to the needs and life style of the people, (iii) supporting projects through a financing system favouring the poor, iv promoting the use of traditional low cost building technologies and their improvement, and v evaluating projects to study their replicability and consolidating these into policies and programmes.¹⁵ HUDCO also took the major initiative of establishing its Human Settlement Management Institute where experiences are shared, problems researched, results documented and information disseminated.

Housing Development Boards in the States

The housing development boards in various states are constituted by the state government concerned under specific Acts passed by its legislature. Their constitution, powers and functions follow more or less the same pattern. The Housing Development Board in the state of Punjab is discussed as an instance representative of housing boards in other states.

To undertake the housing programme systematically, the Punjab Housing Development Board was set up on 9 May 1983. The Board is an autonomous body subject to general control by the state government. It consists of a Chairman and three whole time nominated members: (i) Housing Commissioner, five exofficio members, namely Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department (if he is not appointed as Chairman), Secretary Finance Department, Secretary, Local Government Department, Chief Town Planner, and Chief Engineer, Public Health and not more than five persons from amongst those persons who have wide experience in Housing and Urban Development to be nominated as part-time members. At least one of the nominated whole time members should be a member of scheduled castes while at least two of the non-official part-time members should be members of the scheduled castes or backward classes. The Punjab Housing Development Board (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Members) Rules, 1973, provide for the qualifications and other service conditions of the Chairman and members of the Board.

All citizens of India except those owning a house or a plot in colonies established by Punjab Housing Development Board, urban estates, improvement trusts, or private colonies registered under the Colonies Act in the urban area of Punjab or Chandigarh are eligible for registration with the Board for the purchase of a house. The Board constructs houses of various categories for different income groups, viz., economically weaker sections (EWS), low income group (LIG), middle income group (MIG) (Lower), middle income group (MIG) (Middle), and middle income group (MIG) (Higher), and higher income group (HIG), and allots the houses to the registered persons by drawing lots.

There is however a provision for reservation of houses for different categories (except for ESW and LIG houses) such as Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (8 per cent). Defence personnel including BSF/GREF (5 per cent), widows of defence personnel and BSF personnel belonging to and settled in Punjab (2 per cent), employees of Punjab Housing Development Board (2 per cent), retired police personnel (2 per cent), police personnel (5 per cent), discretionary quota of the Minister for Housing (5 per cent), discretionary quota of Secretary, Local Government, Housing and Urban Development (1 per cent), discretionary quota of the Board for hard deserving cases (5 per cent), inter-caste married couples (0.5 per cent), blind and physically handicapped persons (1.5 per cent), Indians settled abroad or those returned to India permanently who can pay full money in lump sum in foreign exchange (3 per cent), employees of Punjab Government/ Government of India domiciled in Punjab including retired state government or Government of India employees (2 per cent), freedom fighters discretionary quota (2 per cent), couples undergoing terminal operation (2 per cent), terrorists victims (4 per cent), and general (50 per cent).

While there may be justification for reservation for different categories, the discretionary quota of the minister and the bureaucrat (Secretary to Local Government) has been criticized for its having been misused on political and nepotism considerations resulting in the cancellation of the allotment of houses when challenged in courts of law. This reservation therefore needs to be done away with. Since its inception, the Board has made great strides in ameliorating the housing problems of the people from all walks of society, particularly the poor, by providing shelter to them.

By and large, the Board adopts the low cost techniques and new innovations evolved by various research organizations of India such as CBRI and NBD. In addition, great emphasis is laid on proper quality control to ensure construction in accordance with the prescribed specifications and as per time schedule.

Numerous house building cooperative societies are also engaged in house building activities such as HOUSEFED (The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd) instituted in 1970.

Urban Estates

To meet the shortage of housing in the state, Directorate of Housing and Urban Development in various states including Punjab and Haryana have set up urban estates in some select fast growing cities and towns wherein residential plots are offered to the public at reasonable rates. The estates have been provided with modern amenities such as metalled roads, street lighting, drinking water supply, drainage, sewerage, parks and open places and beautified with ornamental trees, and shrubs planted along the roads. There is, therefore, a big demand for residential plots in them. Consequently, the Directorates do not only undertake the expansion of the existing urban estates, but also set up new urban estates from year to year to satisfy this demand.

The construction of buildings in the urban estates in various states is regulated under the respective Urban Estates (Development and Regulation) Acts, and the rules framed thereunder. No plot holder is authorized to construct his house in an urban estate without getting the plans approved by the Estate Office.

Other Steps Taken for Provision of Houses

1. To boost the construction activity in the Urban Estates, loans are advanced to the plot-holders for the construction of houses.
2. Under the subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme, houses are constructed for allotment to the eligible industrial workers.
3. The cooperative and the employer sectors are given financial assistance for the construction of houses in the form of loan and subsidy.
4. Under the Low Income Group Housing Scheme, loans are advanced to individuals as well as the cooperative societies.
5. Houses are also constructed under Crash Housing Scheme for allotment to the government employees posted at the district or tehsil and other places. The shortage of houses has given rise to high rents. which the employees with fixed income find very difficult to pay. The houses constructed by government are allotted to various categories of employees and 10 per cent of the pay is charged as rent, which is very nominal as compared to the rent prevailing in the market.
6. Various central and state government departments, public undertakings and industrial concerns also provide houses to their employees in their respective housing colonies such as Defence, Central Excise, Posts and Telegraph, Railway, Power, LIC, Bank, and Police.

The housing facilities provided so far touch only a tip of the iceberg. Building activities, therefore, need to be accelerated at the top speed to meet existing and growing demand for houses by availing of the institutional finance facilities provided by National Housing Bank, nationalized banks, Life Insurance Corporation, Housefed, Unit Trust of India, public sector organizations, and the private sector.

Conclusion

The main function of the three institutions, viz. improvement trusts, housing board and urban estate is to provide more houses to meet the shortage of the households. Moreover, their pattern of functioning is also similar. It is, therefore, felt that in order to avoid duplication or triplication of institutions for the performance of the same function which involves unavoidable heavy expenses on establishment and other paraphernalia including equipment, etc. it would be better if by merger of all of these institutions a single agency is created for housing purposes. Among other things such a step will solve the problems of acquisition of land, raising of funds, etc. and render the process of house building easier, economical and speedier. The Punjab Government accordingly merged urban estates with the housing board in May 1991 transferring all its assets and liabilities to the latter, notwithstanding the protests of the employees of the urban estates against such a move as they felt that their careers would be jeopardized.

The Water Supply and Sewerage Boards

The obligatory functions of municipal bodies inter alia include the provision of two essential basic amenities, potable water supply and efficient system of waste water disposal for the protection and promotion of health of people in their urban areas. These functions have been carried out generally by the state public works department (Public Health Department) out of funds made available by the local bodies partly from their own sources and partly by raising loans and grants from the state government. It is regrettable that after more than 60 years of Independence, the people in urban areas were either not being served with safe potable water supply or even if they were having some kind of water supply, it did not provide them with adequate quantities essentially required. The conditions on the sanitation front were even worse. In spite of sincere efforts on the part of the state governments, the most inhuman practice of carrying night-soil as head-loads by a section of society still continued. The governments, therefore, realized that unless an autonomous agency is set up it may be impossible to improve and provide safe drinking water supply to the entire urban population in their respective states as also to provide safe and satisfactory methods of disposal of human wastes and thus to raise not only the health standards but also the living standards of the urban population. Accordingly, the Water Supply and Sewerage Boards have been set up in various states including Punjab and Haryana to make a breakthrough in this rather vital field where very little progress had been achieved earlier.

The Board is constituted in terms of the legislation enacted by the state legislature concerned. It consists of a chairman and directors, generally secretaries to the government, Local Government Department, Health and Family Welfare Department, Public Works Department (Public Health); a director of the Local Government Department; a chief engineer of the Public Works Department (Public Health branch), and its managing director.

The board plans and formulates water supply and sewerage projects and carries out their implementation by arranging institutional finance both from within and outside the country from agencies like the International Development Authority (World Bank), Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), and the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), etc. The board’s endeavour is to cover maximum cities and towns under their schemes of potable water supply and underground sewerage depending on the financial resources available for the extension of the schemes.

The Agriculture Ministry, Government of India, had floated a very comprehensive programme for development and utilization of organic manurial resources within the country during the Fifth Five Year Plan with the twin purposes of increasing food production and to prevent pollution of underground water, rivers and streams due to dangerous industrial and human wastes. The Government of India used to meet one-third of the estimated cost of the scheme as central subsidy. The Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board had prepared 61 sewage and sullage utilization schemes at a total cost of Rs 3.45 crore and got them sanctioned from Government of India with a total central subsidy of Rs 1.15 crore, and led all the states in the country in this respect. The Government of India had since transferred the sewage and sullage utilization schemes to the state governments which had agreed to finance the ongoing schemes. In addition, the board has also been carrying out water supply and sewage works in towns other than those covered under IDA, LIC and HUDCO projects according to the deposit of funds by various local bodies.

The demand for water supply and sewerage connections has been increasing over the years with the awareness on the part of the people to avail of these basic facilities. But the boards have not been able to cope with the growing demand due to not only financial scarcity but also their organizational and functional weaknesses and deficiencies which may be discussed below, taking the Punjab Board as representative of boards in other states.

Weaknesses and Deficiencies of the Water Supply and Sewerage Boards

1. The boards suffer from paucity of funds. They depend upon the various funding agencies for the supply of funds by way of aid and loan which may not be available continuously. Therefore, as soon as one installment of funds is exhausted they have to discontinue their operations and take them up only when the next installment is received. In the meantime, the staff has to be retrenched resulting in their frustration and agitation; and great inconveniences to the residents of the city or town concerned due to incompletion of the works which sometimes remain partially completed due to non-availability of funds. The Punjab Board, for example, had almost completed the IDA projects about three years ago and it was trying to keep itself going by getting the second development phase with the World Bank aid and also getting the transfer of water supply and sewerage work from all the municipal bodies to itself to ensure regular flow of money supply. According to the chairman of the Board, an ambitious Rs 600 crore project was on the anvil for bringing rural areas of the state under the umbrella of sewerage and water supply for which the government was approaching the centre for World Bank aid and loan from the LIC and HUDCO. A total sum of Rs 1,200 crore was required for covering all the towns of the state under the sewerage and water supply projects. If both these projects were put into operation in due course of time, the Board would have its hands full.
2. In addition to the inadequacies of finances, the boards have been a target of criticism for their imperfect administrative organization due to two separate sets of personnel, persons on deputations and the Board’s own employees, procedural improprieties and malpractices resulting in bad performance and corruption charges. The boards are not provided with technical staff of their own at the time of their inception. For instance, three circles of the Public Works Department (Public Health) were turned over to Punjab Board and eight executive engineers and 30 assistant engineers were drafted on deputation from the Public Health Department to the Board along with the subordinate staff. The Board made its first expansion two years later by opening three additional circles and recruiting a few assistant engineers and the clerical staff. About 60 per cent of the Board’s 3,500 employees were on deputation from the Public Works Department (Public Health) and the rest were direct recruits. The usual tug of war goes on between the persons on deputation and the regular employees of the Board which is detrimental to the efficiency of the Board.
3. The boards are charged with other derelictions of their duties also. For instance, water closets are installed at several sites where houses have not even been built. In a bid to make the most of the job assigned to them, the contractors give connections indiscriminately.
4. Although the economically weaker house owners are to be provided with a sewer connection on a deferred payment basis, all categories of people including income tax assessees and gazetted officers take advantage of the scheme. In many cases, house owners are never told that they would be required to pay the cost of the connection in installments. They are simply made to sign a form which is filled in by the contractors in most cases.
5. The boards do not fix the monthly sewer service charges on some rational basis and decide these to be equivalent to the drinking water supply charges retrospectively, with the result that house owners are confronted with heavy arrears of sewerage charges which they are unable to pay in a lump sum. Such absurd decisions of the boards are challenged in courts which rescind them and the boards have to suffer heavy financial losses.
6. The water supply is erratic, irregular and undependable due to the inadequacy of water reservoirs and the frequent failure of electricity required to energize the tube-wells. The residents other than those of ground floors sometimes do not get water supply the whole day and even those living on the ground floors complain about non-supply of water when taps go dry due to breakdown of electricity. The remedy lies in providing alternate source of power by installation of generators for uninterrupted energization of tube-wells.
7. The sewerage works executed by the boards are of poor quality resulting in their breakdown which do not only cause health hazards but require massive financial investments to repair them and sometimes to reconstruct them.
8. The boards have earned notoriety for corruption. In some places the citizens have been obliged to approach the state governments to institute enquiries by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into scandals involving embezzlement of money of the boards and that of the municipal bodies. The corruption has assumed such high proportion that even the employees of some of the boards themselves have submitted a memorandum against the corrupt practices of the boards especially of their chairmen and offered to provide vital information in this regard and asked for a high level enquiry into the functioning of the chairmen and their removal.

In conclusion, it may be observed that the performance of the water supply and sewerage boards has not been up to the mark. That is why some states have been considering about their abolition. But it is hard to find some other organization as their substitute. The best way is to revamp their organization and functioning and not to let them starve of funds so that they could meet the most essential water supply and sewerage disposal needs of the urban and rural populations of the country.

Pollution Control Boards

Pollution caused by water, air and noise constitutes one of the greatest challenges to urban governments. The central government Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 defines ‘Pollution of water as such contamination of water or such alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of water of such discharge of any sewage or trade effluent or of any other liquid, gaseous or solid substance into water (whether directly or indirectly) as may, or is likely to create a nuisance or render such water harmful or injurious to public health or safety or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural or other legitimate uses, or to the life and health of animals or plants or of aquatic organism.’ The Central Government Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, defines air pollution as any solid, liquid or gaseous substance present in the atmosphere in such concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to human beings or other living creatures or plants or property or environment.

Rapid urbanization and industrialization have resulted in the deterioration of the environment. The technological and industrial revolution, though providing immense benefits and prosperity to mankind, has brought in its wake the colossal problems of pollution, which constitutes a grave threat to the very survival of the human race and civilization. Pollution by industry alone through the smoke it emits and the liquid effluent it generates causes incalculable damage to the environment and health of people.

Environment and its pollution has been the concern of the entire world, and as a manifestation thereof, an international conference on environment was organized at Stockholm in June 1972 under the auspices of United Nations, in which India had also participated. Decisions were taken to take appropriate steps for the preservation of natural resources. The Government of India, in order to implement these decisions, enacted the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It was felt that there should be an integrated approach for tackling environment problems relating to pollution. It was, therefore, proposed that the central board for the prevention and control of water pollution constituted under the former Act would also perform the functions of the Central Board for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. These acts also provided for the constitution of the state boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, and state boards for the prevention and control of air pollution. Accordingly, various states such as Punjab and Haryana had constituted boards for the prevention and control of water pollution which are subsequently also authorized to exercise the powers and functions of the State Board for Prevention and Control of Air Pollution. Punjab had, for example, constituted the board for the prevention and control of water pollution by an enactment of the state legislature on 30 July 1985, and vested it with the powers and functions of the board for prevention and control of air pollution from 15 May 1986.

The boards generally consist of a chairman (having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of matters relating to environmental protection), two officials to represent the government, three members from amongst the members of the local authorities, two persons to represent the interests of agriculture, fishery, industry, trade, or any other interest which in the opinion of the state governments ought to be represented, and two persons to represent the companies or corporations owned, controlled, or managed by the state governments. All these persons are nominated by the governments for three years. The governments also appoint a full time member-secretary of the board. The boards may also associate any person whose assistance or advice they may desire to obtain in performing any of their functions but he or she will not have a right to vote. The state governments may remove any member of the board before the expiry of his term of office, after giving him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be removed. And it may also supersede the board for a period not exceeding one year after giving it a reasonable opportunity if it feels that the board has persistently made default in the performance of its functions, or that circumstances exist which render it necessary in the public interest to supersede it.

The main functions of the board are to plan a comprehensive programme for the prevention and control of pollution in the state and to secure the execution thereof; to encourage, conduct, and participate in investigations and research relating to problems of pollution, to collaborate with the central Board in organizing the training of persons engaged in programmes relating to pollution and to organize mass education programmes relating to pollution.

In addition to these functions, the boards may establish or recognize a laboratory or laboratories for the analysis of samples of water or of any sewage or trade effluent; inspect air pollution control areas at such intervals as it may think necessary, assess the quality of air therein and take steps for the prevention and control of air pollution in such areas, lay down standard for emission of it pollutants into the atmosphere from industrial plants and automobiles or for the discharge of any air pollutant into the atmosphere from any other source whatsoever not being a ship or an aircraft.

The boards have their own funds comprising the sums which may, from time to time, be paid to them by the state government concerned and other receipts by way of gifts, grants, donations, benefactions, fees, fines, etc. The central government levies and collects a cess from every person carrying on any specified industry, and from every local authority, calculated on the basis of the water consumed. The proceeds of the cess are credited to the Consolidated Fund of India and the central government by appropriation made by law, pays to the central board and every state board from out of such proceeds, with regard to the amount of cess collected by the state government concerned.

Urbanization is taking its toll in almost every city. The cities which were once called ‘city of gardens’ and considered to be the cleanest cities have lost that claim. The gardens have been devoured by residential and commercial activities. III-planned and ribbon growth on the outskirts and congestion in the old cities have put a great strain on the public services and created major ecological hazards. Lack of proper and adequate collection, and treatment and disposal system of the cities wastes have aggravated the pollution problem. The boards have been persuading the concerned municipal bodies to treat the sewage before letting it on the land for irrigation, so that it is not a health hazard for residents of the city eating vegetables grown with it.

One of the major causes of air pollution in the cities is the exhaust fumes from the automobile traffic. Monitoring carried out by the Boards have revealed 80 to 85 per cent of the buses and 40 to 45 per cent of other vehicles plying in the cities emit gases beyond permissible limits. The boards have, therefore, requested the state transport commissioners to amend the motor vehicles rules in order to control these emissions. The boards also propose to install an air quality monitoring station in various cities to continuously monitor the quality of air.

With increased industrialization, the menace of pollution is assuming alarming proportions in industrial cities and towns. Ludhiana, the industrial capital of Punjab has come to be described as the most polluted city in the state. The atmosphere there has already got polluted 200 per cent to 300 per cent above the norms laid down by the Central Pollution Control Board. Here the skyline is characterized by dark blast smoke emitted by chimneys. The roads are almost choked with traffic and there are frequent traffic blocks. The location of railway station and the loco-shed in the heart of the city has added to the serious problem of pollution. It is feared that the incidence of high blood pressure, respiratory and eye diseases, tuberculosis, and cancer will rise in the city if effective steps are not taken to check industrial pollution.

Due to the efforts of the Pollution Control Board, the problem is being tackled in various ways. Some industrial units have been persuaded to modify their processes to minimize pollution; some industries have installed gravity separation chimneys to arrest particulate matter; those industries which were major users of rice husk have improved their furnaces with better efficiency furnaces; other major industries have substituted their old boilers with new ones based on efficient suspension burning. But much more needs to be done to combat the evil of pollution.

It is felt that pollution control systems are not within the means of small units and therefore a new system needs to be developed keeping in view the constraints of such units. In view of the magnitude of the problems, realistic steps need to be taken by the government and municipal bodies. It should be obligatory on the part of the municipal bodies to install treatment plants for industrial effluents. Municipal corporations are criticized for not discharging their duties in spite of the fact that they collect crores of rupees from the industrial sector in form of taxes. It is alleged that the pollution control boards are interested only in the prosecution of industrialists, and they do not come forward in helping the industrial sector in installing pollution control devices.

Anyhow, it has to be realized that the task of rehabilitation and preservation of environment is stupendous. It cannot be left to the pollution control boards or government agencies alone. It is for the people of every city to resist unplanned growth and pollution activities in their respective cities and to restore them the glory they deserve. In some of the cities environment societies have been set up for creating awareness about environment among the citizens by organizing essay competitions, declamation contests, exhibitions, etc. and formulating plans for the maintenance of neglected parts and round-abouts by involving youths.

Conclusion

A study of the various urban institutions entrusted with municipal functions attempted above clearly brings to light the following:

1. The functions assigned to them are overlapping, as for instance, housing development is the task of three agencies, viz. urban states, the housing board and the improvement trusts, without any perceivable coordination among them. There is thus a strong case for amalgamating these agencies into one or restricting this activity exclusively to one agency only. Similarly, the functions of town development are vested both in the municipal bodies and improvement trusts and provision of water supply and sewerage have been entrusted both to municipal bodies and the improvement trusts who, in turn, are the clientele of the Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which could perhaps render better services if it were to prepare and execute schemes for the entire areas of concerned cities instead of taking them up piecemeal as is inevitable under two separate jurisdictions. In the same way, environment improvement is the responsibility of the concerned municipal body, the Pollution Control Board and the Sewerage Board but the supply of water and the disposal of the sewerage is that of municipal body concerned. And since the operations of these are seldom synchronized, the citizens have to suffer.
2. The creation of these agencies has diffused and disintegrated the system of urban local government and lowered its prestige and significance.
3. The citizens have been put to a lot of inconvenience for getting their various needs fulfilled by approaching multiple organizations.
4. The multiplicity of organizations has diluted the responsibility of each and it has become difficult to fix responsibility for the lapses and failures in the performance of local tasks which are obviously interlinked.
5. These agencies, composed of bureaucrats as they are, are not amenable to popular control and are therefore responsible for negation of local democracy.
6. The municipal bodies which contribute to the budget of these agencies have no control over them or their policies.
7. These agencies suffer from paucity of funds (some of them are even bankrupt) and therefore unable to adequately perform their tasks.

The question of the continuity of these agencies therefore needs serious consideration. There can be three alternatives in deciding their future; first, they should be abolished and merged with the concerned municipal body as has been done in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, and other states as mentioned earlier, and their finances should consequently be restored to the municipal bodies which would naturally be strengthened with requisite financial resources and technical expertise to perform their tasks; second, all these organizations should be put under the unified administrative control of the city council to achieve coordination in their working, and lastly, an urban development authority should be set up in the concerned state to ensure better coordination among various agencies involved in urban development as well as to raise more institutional finances. Accordingly Haryana had set up Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) in 1971 and Punjab also set up Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) in 1995.