IMPORTANT POINT
Contemner is guilty of contempt of Court s order. This apology is rejected. He is punished for a week s simple imprisonment and saddled with costs of Rs. 1 lakh.

Headnote:Contempt of Court-Contemner running Hot Mix Plant causing pollution as an Hazardous Industry in Delhi-Neither closing nor shifting outside Delhi despite orders of Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Court-Salvaging himself by feigning ignorance of Supreme Court s order which was in the knowledge of the contemner-Apology whether acceptable? (No)-Punishment of one week s imprisonment and costs of Rs. 1 lakh imposed-Petition disposed of by awarding deposited costs equally between DPCC and Counsel Amicus Curiae.
       Held : In the facts and circumstances as adumbrated above and taking into account the entire course of conduct of the contemner, it is apparent that the contemner was taking the Court for a ride by raiding one Court or the other deliberately with oblique motive to circumvent the Court s orders thereby salvaging himself by feigning ignorance of this Court s order which was in the knowledge of the contemner. (Para 18)
       Held further : The conduct of the contemner, as recited above, is beyond condonable limit. It is now well-settled principle that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge the guilt of the contemner. At the same time, the apology must be sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology tendered by the respondent is at a belated stage to escape punishment of the Court. Furthermore, as already noticed, in paragraph 6 of the affidavit he has stated that he has not committed any contempt and defended his action. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit, as quoted above, though it is stated that he tenders unconditional apology, it is not really so, as in paragraph 6 of the affidavit he has defended his action. Therefore, the apology so tendered by the contemner is not a product of remorse or contrition. (Para 22)
       Held consequently : In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, we reject the apology tendered by the contemner and hold that Ashok Kumar Chhabra is guilty of contempt of Court. This takes us to consider the quantum of punishment. In the last affidavit filed, the contemner has stated that he is 53 years old. The gravamen of contemptuous act of the respondent is of superlative dimension as this relates to the violation of not only the Court s orders but also of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The pollution of air is causing deleterious affect on the health of the entire society. We have also considered the larger interest of the society and orders passed by this Court for the interest of the society at large. Liberty of an individual which is so dear to every citizen of this country must necessarily be balanced with his duties and obligations towards his fellow citizens. Every citizen of this country has freedom to breathe unpolluted air. In air pollution related matter or in any matter relating to environment hazard, if the orders of the highest court are disobeyed as sought to be done in this case, the health hazard of the entire society is at great risk. We are, therefore, convinced to send strong signal by imposing exemplary punishment so that like minded people would not repeat and such recurrence is thwarted. Keeping this background in mind, we are of the view, that the ends of justice would be served, if the contemner is sentenced to one-week simple imprisonment. We order accordingly. In addition, he is saddled with costs, which we quantify at Rs. one lakh. The costs shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today and on the costs being deposited, the Registry shall pay 50 per cent to Delhi Pollution Control Board and 50 per cent to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, amicus curiae, who assisted the Court. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. (Para 24, 25 and 26)

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-A contempt petition against the respondent Ashok Kumar Chhabra arises pursuant to the show cause notice of contempt issued by this Court on 25th November, 1999 for willful violation of various orders passed by this Court. The respondent was running hot mix plant industry located at village Rangpuri, New Delhi. The hot mix plant was the subject matter of consideration by an Expert Committee of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to determine the pollution and hazardous aspects of this industry. On 13th March, 1996 this Court directed the CPCB to issue notices to the hot mix plants located in Delhi as to why they be not relocated. The Board issued notices to the Hot Mix Plants and after considering the replies/objections filed by them, the Expert Committee of the Board arrived at the following conclusion :

"The process emissions from Hot Mix Plants contain particulate matter and sulphur dioxide besides Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbons most of which are proven carcinogens. Therefore, the Expert Committee of CPCB has categorised Hot Mix Plants as hazardous industry (`Ha category). As per Master Plan 2001, all hazardous/noxious industries should be shifted out of the U.T. of Delhi."

2. Basing on the aforesaid report, this Court on 10th October, 1996 inter alia directed the 43 hot mix plants to stop functioning and operating in the city of Delhi w.e.f. February 28, 1997. The directions are contained in paragraph 4 of the order. For the purpose of disposal of this petition direction Nos. 1, 2 and 8 are relevant which read thus:

"(1) The above listed 43 Hot Mix Plants cannot be permitted to operate and function in Delhi. These Hot Mix Plants may relocate/shift themselves to any other industrial estate in the NCR. We direct that the 43 Hot Mix Plants listed above shall stop functioning and operating in the city of Delhi with effect from February 28, 1997. These Hot Mix Plants shall close down and stop functioning in Delhi with effect from the said date.

(2) The concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police shall, as directed by us, effect the closure of the above Hot Mix Plants with effect from February 28, 1997 and file compliance report in this Court within 15 days thereafter.

(8) The closure order with effect from February 28, 1997 shall be unconditional. Even if the re-location of Hot Mix Pants is not complete they shall stop functioning in Delhi with effect from February 28, 1997."

3. Undisputedly, the aforesaid directions were with regard to 43 hot mix plants in which the unit of the respondent does not figure. Accordingly, the order dated 10th October, 1996 was clarified by this Court on 5th December, 1997 in which the name of Ashok Kumar Chhabra s unit has been included. On noticing that the respondent s unit has also been closed down which required to be relocated outside Delhi, this Court also directed that the land for relocation of 44 hot mix plants (including the respondent) shall be made available by the State Government concerned within three months from passing of the order. The draw of lots for the hot mix plants was held in the office of the NCR Planning Board on 8.2.1998 at 4.00 p.m. pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 16th January 1998. Master sheet including the name of the parties and the sites allotted to them was annexed with the order dated 12th February 1998 of the Chief Regional Planner, in which the respondent - Ashok Kumar Chhabra has been allotted alternative site at Dadri. The name of the respondent is shown at Sl.No. 36 of the list.

4. Despite the order of closing down by this Court on 10th October, 1996, as noticed above, and allotment of the alternative site, respondent was continued operating his unit at Delhi culminating in the order dated 16th May, 1997 passed by the Chairman, Delhi Pollution Control Committee, under Section 31(A) of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In the said order sequence of events has been noted. It has an i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 400

IMPORTANT POINTContemner is guilty of contempt of Court s order. This apology is rejected. He is punished for a week s simple imprisonment and saddled with costs of Rs. 1 lakh.

Cases Referred (4)

IMPORTANT POINT
Contemner is guilty of contempt of Court s order. This apology is rejected. He is punished for a week s simple imprisonment and saddled with costs of Rs. 1 lakh.