M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 851 · Decided: 28-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M.C.MEHTA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Environmental Law : 
Haz.ardous/noxiouslheavy and large industries-Situated in Delhi-Shift-
ing/Relocation of-Land vacated-Use of-Directions to summder required 
portion of land to DDA--Contention that DDA should acquire such land under 
s. 15 of Delhi Development Act-Rejected-Earlier order of Supreme Court 
dated 10.5.1996 explained-Industries directed to voluntarily surrender the 
land to DDA-If they do not do so, DDA to file execution applications before 
District Judge Delhi who shall thereupon execute the order dated 10.5.1996 
and report compliance. 
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others, [1996) 4 SCC 351, ex-
plained. 
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, [1997) 11 SCC 327, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 129 
IN 
I.A. No. 22 
IN 
Writ petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, Parag P. Tripathi, 
Dushyant A. Dave, G.L. Sanghi, Jaspal Singh, N.N. Goswami, Bachawat, 
S.B. Sanyal, A.K. Panda, (Ranjit Kumar) (AC), (M.C. Mehta)-in-person for 
Petitioner, Ms. Seema Midha, S. Sukumaran, J.B. Dadachanji, B.K. Khurana, 
A.T. Patra, Jaideep Gupta, Ms. Punita Singh, Ratnesh, Pakesh K. Khanna, Ms. 
Pallavi Chaudhary, Surya Kant, K.C. Kaushik, S.N. Terdol, (Vijay Panjwani) 
851 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
852 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
(CPCB), D.N. Goburdhan, Ms; GeetaLuthra, Ms. Pinky Anand, V.B. Saharya, 
Ms. Sheil Sethi, R.S. Suri, Jagjit S. Chhabra, E.C. Agrawala, Sushi! Kumar 
Jain, R.C. Verma, C. Siddharth, Ashok K. Gupta, Farrukh Rashid, Pankaj 
Kalra, Dinesh Mathur, Nidhesh Gupta, Nishakant, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, M.L. 
Lahoty, Paban K Sharma, Himanshu Shekhar, Jeevan Prakash, L.P. Aggarwala, 
K.M.K. Nair, B.S. Banthia, Dhruv Mehta, S.K: Mehta, Ms. Shobha, Abhishek 
Atrey, Ashwani Bhardwaj, S.P. Sharma, Dr. J.N. Singh, Naresh Kumar, Anil 
Shrivastav, Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mukhesh Jain, Imtiaz Ahmed, R.D. 
Upadhyay, K.K. Patil R.P. Wadhwani, Maninder Singh, Ms. Pratibha, M. 
Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia, C.V. Subba Rao, S.K. Dwivedi, Manrnohan, Ms. 
Bina Gupta, Tapash K. Singh, Ms. Vanita Bhargava, J.D. Jain, Rajiv Dutta, 
Ashok Kumar Chopra, P.S. Jha, R.B. Misra, Navin Chawla, Rajiv Nanda, 
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Ms. Nandini Gore, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Rajiv Sharma, 
J.K. Das, Ms. Indira Sawhney, Ms. Mad.bu Sikri, Ramesh Babu M.R., K.C. 
Dua, Ramesh N. Keshwani, S.K. Verma, A.K. Sanghi, Uma Nath Singh, (R.L. 
Aggarwal)-in-person, Mohinder Singh, Bimal Roy Jad, D.K. Garg, Anuj 
Ahuja, Y.P. Dhingra, B.K. Satija, Praveen Swarup, S.K. Sabharwal, Ms. Rani 
Chhabra, C.L. Sethi and M.A. Chinnaswamy for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This is an application where the main prayer is that the order of this 
Court dated 10th May, 1996 should be ordered to be implemented. By the said 
decision reported as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors, [1996] 4 SCC 
351, this Court, inter alia, directed that in respect of hazardous/noxious/heavy 
and large industries, there should be compliance with the Master Plan of Delhi 
which came into effect in 1990. With regard to the hazardous industry which 
was existing in Delhi, the said Master Plan required that the industry should 
shift wi_thin three years. As far as heavy and large industri~s were concerned, 
the Master Plan did not permit any new heavy or large industry to be set up 
and with regard to the existing heavy and large industrial units, it was stated 
that they shall shift to Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National ,Capital 
Region keeping in view the National Capital Region Plan and National 
Industrial Policy of the Government of India. The land which was to be 
vacated by such units was to be utilised according to the provisions of the 
Master Plan. 
In the aforesaid decision, it was directed that in accordance with the 
H 
provisions of the Master Plan, the hazar4oustnoxious/heavy and large indus-
..... ;x 
.... 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
853 
tries must shift after closing their units. this Court considered the proposal of 
A 
the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) which had contemplated some 
portion of land which would become vacant on the shifting/relocation of the 
industry being developed by the DDA, the balance being used by the owner 
for housing facilities and another percentage of land being used by the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.