Shri P. G. Gupta vs State Of Gujrat & Ors on 14 December, 1994 realisation of these rights. Recognising these obligations of the State and to give effect to the essential importance of International cooperation, the directions contained in Arts.38, 39 and 46, the Housing Scheme for allotment to lower income group of the people was made. Possession of real property is the basis for and the symbol of wealth and influence in society. To the poor, settlement with a fixed abode and right to residence guaranteed by Art.19(1)(e) remain more a teasing illusion unless the State provides them the means to have food, clothing and shelter so as to make their life meaningful and worth-living with dignity. 9.In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 at 572 para 32, when the squatters and the pavement dwellers were sought to be ejected by the respondent, without due process of law, they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32. A Constitution Bench held that their eviction from the dwellings would result in deprivation of their livelihood. Right to life under Ar- ticle 21 includes right to livelihood and so if deprivation of livelihood is effected without reasonable procedure established by law, it would be violative of Article 21. In that context, this Court held the sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21, is wide and far reaching. Life means more than animal existence. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example', by imposition of execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of right to life. An equally important facet of that right to livelihood is no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such dep- rivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. There is, thus, a close nexus between life and the means of livelihood and as such that, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. 10. In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630, a Bench of three Judges, to which one of us (K.Ramaswamy, J.) was a Member, held that :"The right to life would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be, kept in view. For the animal it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citiZen must be ensured of living in a well- built comfortable house but a reasonable home particularly for people in India can even be mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fire-proof accommodation. 11. As stated earlier, the right to residence and settlement is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(e) and it is a facet of inseparable meaningful right to life under Article 21. Food, shelter and clothing are minimal human rights. The State has undertaken as its economic policy of planned Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1913799/ 4