1. Misrepresentation by gas company about compression and dispensing capacity led court to pass orders based on incorrect information. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2077
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., V.N. Khare, Ashok Bhan, JJ.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
United Communist Party of India - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Anr. - Respondents
Kamakshi Singh Mehlwal - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition(Civil) No.13029/1985 with Writ Petition(Civil) No.355/2001
Decided On : 09-09-2002
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harish N. Salve, S.G. (A.C.), Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, (A.C.), Ms. Aparajita Singh, Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Ms. Gayatri Goswami, Mr. M.C. Mehta, Petr. in Person (N.P.), Advocates, IA 179:Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, Advocate, IA 180:Mr. D S Mahra, Advocate, IA 182 and 183:Mr. G L Sanghi, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Mr. J P Dhanda, Advocates. IA 184:Mr. J S Chadha, applicant in person., Advocate, IA 185:Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta, Advocate, IA 188-189, 190, 187:Mr. D S Mahra, Advocate, IA 151:Mr. G K Bansal, Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocates. SLP..CC6990-91/00:Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate, SLP13208:Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, IA 192:Mr. R K Kapoor, Mr. B R Kapur, Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri and Mr. C S Ashri, Advocates. IA 194 and 195:Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Kirti R. Mishra, Advocates. IA 181:Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate, WP 227/01:Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate, WP 355/01:Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Advocate,
For the Min. of Env./U.O.I. :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG., Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Delhi Police :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the NCT Delhi :Mr. V P Singh, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Min. of Surface Transport :Ms. Niranjana Singh, Advocate.
For the TELCO :Mr. Percy Gandhi, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Devika Khanna, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the D.T.C. :Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate.
For the N.C.R.P.B. :Ms. Sheil Sethi, Advocate.
For the C.P.C.B. :Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.
For the D.D.A. :Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, M/s VB Saharya & Co., Advocates.
For SIAM & Ashok Leyland :Mr. Shri Narain, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocates.
For the STA Operators :Ms. Sudha Pal, Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocates.
For the I.G.L. :Mr. P Chidambaram, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sharma, Advocates.
For the I.O.C.L. Mr. H K Puri, Mr. S.K. Puri, Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita Gupta, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Mr. Reetesh Singh, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocates.
For the B.P.C.L. :Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advocate.
For the D.P.C.C. :Mr. R.C. Verma, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Mr. K K Rai, Mr. B B Singh, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Mr. G. Prakash, Mr. Deepak M Nargolkar, Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Mr. Manish Singhvi, Advocates.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harish N. Salve, S.G. (A.C.), Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, (A.C.), Ms. Aparajita Singh, Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Ms. Gayatri Goswami, Mr. M.C. Mehta, Petr. in Person (N.P.), Advocates, IA 179:Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, Advocate, IA 180:Mr. D S Mahra, Advocate, IA 182 and 183:Mr. G L Sanghi, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Mr. J P Dhanda, Advocates. IA 184:Mr. J S Chadha, applicant in person., Advocate, IA 185:Mr. Abhijit Sen Gupta, Advocate, IA 188-189, 190, 187:Mr. D S Mahra, Advocate, IA 151:Mr. G K Bansal, Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocates. SLP..CC6990-91/00:Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate, SLP13208:Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, IA 192:Mr. R K Kapoor, Mr. B R Kapur, Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri and Mr. C S Ashri, Advocates. IA 194 and 195:Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Kirti R. Mishra, Advocates. IA 181:Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocate, WP 227/01:Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Advocate, WP 355/01:Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Advocate,
For the Min. of Env./U.O.I. :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG., Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. Y.P. Mahajan, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Delhi Police :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the NCT Delhi :Mr. V P Singh, Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocates.
For the Min. of Surface Transport :Ms. Niranjana Singh, Advocate.
For the TELCO :Mr. Percy Gandhi, Mr. R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Devika Khanna, Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the D.T.C. :Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate.
For the N.C.R.P.B. :Ms. Sheil Sethi, Advocate.
For the C.P.C.B. :Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.
For the D.D.A. :Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, M/s VB Saharya & Co., Advocates.
For SIAM & Ashok Leyland :Mr. Shri Narain, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Advocates.
For the STA Operators :Ms. Sudha Pal, Mr. Rajeev K. Dubey, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Advocates.
For the I.G.L. :Mr. P Chidambaram, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Ms. Simran Mehta, Mr. Rakesh Kr. Sharma, Advocates.
For the I.O.C.L. Mr. H K Puri, Mr. S.K. Puri, Mr. Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita Gupta, Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Mr. Reetesh Singh, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocates.
For the B.P.C.L. :Mr. Parijat Sinha, Advocate.
For the D.P.C.C. :Mr. R.C. Verma, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. Satish K Agnihotri, Mr. K K Rai, Mr. B B Singh, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Mr. G. Prakash, Mr. Deepak M Nargolkar, Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Mr. Manish Singhvi, Advocates.
Providing misleading information in affidavits to the Court is a serious breach of duty, justifying a show cause notice to the responsible officials for misleading the Court into passing orders based on false premises.
Headnote:(A) Procedural Law - Duty of Truthfulness in Court Filings - Providing incorrect or misleading information in affidavits regarding technical capacities (compression vs. dispensing capacity) - If a party misleads the Court into passing orders based on inaccurate facts, it constitutes a failure to discharge obligations and may warrant punitive action against the responsible officials. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
A gas supply company filed several affidavits assuring the Court it could meet the demand of the transport sector if more supply was provided. It was later revealed that compression capacity and dispensing capacity are different, and the high ratio of sales to compression capacity caused long queues. The Court found it had been misled as it had assumed these two capacities were identical, leading to the issuance of orders based on that false premise.
Findings of Court:
The company misled the Court regarding the correct state of affairs, and there was no expression of regret or remorse for the incorrect information supplied in the affidavits.
Issues: Whether the company officials are liable for misleading the Court and how to ensure the proper dispensation of gas to the transport sector.
Ratio Decidendi: Parties and their officials have a duty to provide accurate information to the Court; misleading the Court through incorrect affidavits is a serious lapse that justifies the issuance of show cause notices to determine appropriate action against the responsible individuals. (Para 4)
Result: Notice issued to the officials to show cause and the government directed to propose remedial steps.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Gas company claimed capacity difference causes queues; earlier assured demand could be met with more supply. Another party disputed demand projection. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. Court was misled about capacity being same; no remorse shown. Incorrect information led to orders based on false premise. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Providing incorrect information to court amounts to misleading the court and may attract contempt proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Court issued show cause notices to managing director and others; directed Union to propose remedial steps for proper CNG dispensation. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What constitutes misleading the court by a party in affidavits?
Providing incorrect information about compression and dispensing capacity while knowing the true position, and failing to correct prior assurances, misleads the court and warrants contempt action. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. What is the duty of a party regarding accuracy of information provided to the court?
A party must provide accurate and explicit information; allowing the court to pass orders based on incorrect information is a serious breach of duty. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
2. Today for the first time, on the basis of the affidavits filed on behalf of Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL), this Court is sought to be informed, though not in very clear and explicit terms, that compression capacity and dispensing capacity of a station dispensing gas are two different things. Again for the first time in the affidavit dated 8th August, 2002 on behalf of IGL, this Court is being informed that "for comfortable fuelling (generally without queue or at the most waiting period of 10-15 minutes during the peak period), the sales/offtake should be around 40% of the compression capacity" and "that because sales/offtake is 66% - 68% of the compression capacity, there are long queues at CNG stations."
3. Over the last two years, various affidavits filed on behalf of IGL had assured the Court that it will be able to meet the demand of the transport sector in Delhi, but for the fact that it was not getting sufficient supplies. It is for this reason that the Union of India was directed by this Court to make available 16.1 lakh kg of CNG per day to ensure that the requirement of the transport sector in Delhi is met. It is on this basis that it was also observed, that if necessary, gas be supplied to the industry but preference should be given to the transport sector. In the affidavits filed in February, March, May, August, September and October 2001 and in I.A. No. 160 as well as in the affidavit of May 2002 what is indicated is that the requirement of the transport sector would be met by IGL if more supply is forthcoming. In the presentation to the Bhure Lal Committee of IGL in July 2001, it is stated that the CNG dispensing capacity will be 11.6 lakh kg per day by March 2002 and in another presentation it is also mentioned that IGL's commitment to this Court is to have a dispensing capacity upto 4.40 lakh kg per day by September 2001 and that as on 16th November, 2001 the dispensing capacity was 4.40 lakh kg per day. It is clear that despite the new Managing Director having taken over in July 2001, this Court was completely kept in dark and was misled with regard to the correct state of affairs. It was on the basis that the compression capacity and the dispensing capacity was one and the same, and, with the increase in supply of gas, the company would be able to dispense greater quantity of CNG to the consumers, that various orders were passed by this Court.
4. There is no expression of regret or remorse for the incorrect information having been supplied to this Court. We, therefore, issue notice to the Shri A.K. De, Managing Director of IGL to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him and the company for having misled this Court in passing various orders. Notices be issued to Shri Rajeev Sharma, Shri L. Lobo and Shri P.S. Bhargava. Notices returnable on 23rd September, 2002 for directions. All of them should be present in Court on that day. We may here notice that Mr. P. Chidambaram during course of submissions submitted that the demand of CNG projected at 16.1 lakh kg per day in Delhi is erroneous and grossly exaggerated.
5. Since IGL has failed to discharge its obligation, the Union of India is directed to inform the Court on the next date of hearing what remedial steps can be taken to ensure full and proper dispensation of CNG to the transport sector without there being any queue. List on 23rd September, 2002 for directions.
