NEW DELHI: : Importance of toilets can be best assessed by the fact that a few months delay in construction of a toilet block led to Bombay High Court initiating contempt proceedings against a Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation engineer and in turn the matter rolling up to the Supreme Court on Friday.The Bombay HC on Oct 4 had directed the BMC to construct within three months the toilets at a slum cluster in Kalina, Santacruz E, invoking right to life guaranteed under Article 21 which included dignified living and the provisions under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Four months later, on Feb 2, the HC found that the toilet blocks remained incomplete and had slammed the BMC threatening to take contempt action.BMC executive engineer Maheshkumar Sampat Jare, who had been bearing the brunt of the HC’s displeasure, attempted to explain that the survey took some time and since it is a toilet block having 32 units – 15 for women, 16 for men and one for handicapped persons, it would require nine months for completion, as was estimated by his superiors in the corporation.The HC on May 6 again found that despite its Feb 2 order, the toilet blocks had not been completed and initiated contempt proceedings against Jare. A week later, the toilet complex was inaugurated. With the contempt sword hanging, Jare rushed to the SC.Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal told a bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh that Jare had an unblemished service record of 35 years, that he would retire 18 months later and that it would be unfortunate to undergo the rigours of contempt of court proceedings when he had done everything possible under his control to finish the project as expeditiously as possible.The bench said, “When the High Courts issue contempt notices, as a matter of principle, the Supreme Court should not interfere with it except in exceptional circumstances.” However, it noted that the toilet block has since been inaugurated and told Jare to appear before HC and explain the circumstances which led to delay.Agrawal said that strong remarks have been made by the HC in its order and that the alleged contemnor is apprehensive about his fate. The bench requested HC to decide the issue involved in the contempt proceedings without being influenced by its observations in the earlier orders. “HC is seeking an explanation only. SO go before the HC and explain everything,” the bench told Jare.