Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 13381 of 1984
Decided On : 10-04-1996
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Section 39A - Public Investment Board – Illegal and arbitrary - It is obvious from the tenure of our order quoted above that this Court asked Public Investment Board to grant its approval to the Project expeditiously. Mathura Refinery is emitting more than of Dioxide per hour which is a health hazard for the human being and also hazardous for the world heritage - According to NEERI report, emissions but according to present in Court emissions as at present hour - This Court directed Public Investment Board to examine matter, which obviously did not mean a long period - Court are of the view that Chairman of Public Investment Board has shown scant respect to the orders of this Court - Court issue show cause notice to Chairman of Public Investment Board why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him – Held, Pursuant to this Courts order additional affidavit has been filed by Joint Secretary Public Works Department - It is stated in the affidavit that the construction proposed by-pass shall continue. learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. states that funds for the construction of are already available with the Department road is under construction - Remaining is required to be widened - Present proposed road is less than 3 meters and it is to be widened to the width of 3.7 meter which is the minimum requirement for single lane road - This may be done. The affidavit further states that another one meter extension is necessary to provide clear sight of vision to drivers to prevent accidents. If that is done, then 263 trees are to be cut - Court are not inclined to permit the cutting of such a large number of trees and as such the extension of road may be done only at those places where there are no trees - Court make it clear that we do not permit the cutting of trees as suggested in the affidavit. So far as cutting of 80 trees for widening the road by one meter is concerned, that may be done if it is absolutely necessary. Initially we were of view that this stretch of road should be constructed within six months from date of this courts last order. Keeping in view the difficulties explained by Court direct complete by-pass - A responsible officer of the Department shall file progress reports after every three months - Learned counsel appearing for the Board, that with the completion of the Short Term and Medium Term projects there shall be improvement in electricity supply, so far as Agra town is concerned. After the completion of all three projects, there shall be uninterrupted supply to Trapezium - Total cost for all the three projects has been stated to - According to affidavit Board has already started the Short Term and the Medium Term work with Boards own funds amounting - Learned counsel for Union of India states that copy of the affidavit has been received by him today - He would place affidavit before the concerned authorities of Government of India and file a short affidavit in this Court within two weeks from today - Affidavit shall indicate as to from what sources and within how much time sum of needed to complete the electricity supply projects shall be made available to the U.P. State Electricity Board – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT :
ITEM A:
1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated March 14, 1996 Mr. CP Jain, Chief Manager (Safety and Environment Protection), Indian Oil Corporation has filed an affidavit. In our order dated March 14, 1996 we noticed the statement of Mr. CP Jain to the effect that the Public Investment Board had given its clearance to the proposal for construction of Hydro Cracking Unit in the Mathura Refinery on March 14, 1996. Mr. Jain has in the affidavit under consideration stated that after the clearance from the Public Investment Board, the proposal shall have to be approved by the Cabinet Committee on economic affairs. It is stated once the approval from the Administrative Ministry is received, the actual work of procurement of machinery and construction will start and the project is likely to be completed within a period of 42 months.
2. We are constraint to say that despite continuous monitoring by this Court even the paper work has not as yet been completed. This Court on January 20, 1995 observed as under:
"...Mr. Mathur, in para 7 of his affidavit has given details of the further procedure to be followed for the final completion of the project. According to the affidavit the Committee of Public Investment Board has to sanction expenditure for the preparation of detail feasibility report. We are informed that Secretary Expenditure is the Chairman of the Public Investment Board. We request the Secretary, Public Investment Board to have this matter examined by the Board expeditiously keeping in view the importance of the project. We do not wish to fix any period within which the Board should finalise the matter but we trust and hope that the matter shall be finalised at an early stage."
3. It is obvious from the tenure (sic) of our order quoted above that this Court asked the Public Investment Board to grant its approval to the Project expeditiously. Mathura Refinery is emitting more than 500 Kg. of Sulphur Dioxide per hour which is a health hazard for the human being and also hazardous for the world heritage Taj Mahal. According to the NEERI report, the emissions are 859 Kg. per hour, but according to Mr. Jain, present in Court, the emissions as at present are 500 Kg. per hour.
4. This Court directed the Public Investment Board to examine the matter expediously, which obviously did not mean a long period of 14 months. We are of the view that the Chairman of the Public Investment Board has shown scant respect to the orders of this Court. We issue show cause notice to Mr. N.K. Singh, the Chairman of the Public Investment Board why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
5. We are informed that the project has now been sent to the Cabinet Committee on economic affairs. Learned counsel appearing for the Mathura Refinery states that the project shall be forwarded to the Cabinet Committee within two weeks from today. They may do so. We request Mr. Surendra Singh, Cabinet Secretary to have this project placed before Cabinet Committee on economic affairs as expeditiously as possible for clearance, after the same is received by the Committee. The Mathura Refinery shall file a short affidavit before July 10, 1996 indicating the progress in this respect. The Refinery in the affidavit may also indicate as to whether other recommendations of the NEERI are being complied with, specially regarding the setting up of the Chemo- Biochemical process. Since the work of controlling pollution - despite this Court's continuous efforts - is not being done according to the time schedule repeatedly set up by this Court and Refinery is polluting the ambient around Taj Mahal, we are of the view that pollution fine should be imposed on the Mathura Refinery. We issue notice to the Mathura Refinery to show cause why heavy pollution fine be not imposed on the Refinery.
6. to come up on July 10, 1996.
GAS AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED
7. Pursuant to this Court's order dated March 14, 1996 Mr. PC Gupta, General manager (Civil), Gas Authority of India has
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
