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

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 10-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, DORAISWAMY RAJU, BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

- ---
-. 
" 
< 
M.C. MEHTA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 10,2001 
[B.N. KIRPAL, DORAISWANY RAJU AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 197 I: 
Contempt of Court-Non compliance with orders of Supreme Court-
Jndustries operating in residential areas in Delhi and non-conforming with C 
Master Plan-Direction given by Supreme Court to stop their operation and 
relocate them within a time frame-Not implemented by authorities-Contempt 
proceedings initiated-Unqualified apology tendered by authorities concerned 
and also indicating the steps taken in the matter-Held, the authorities have 
not put in sufficient effort to comply with orders of relocation-With a hope D 
that orders will be earnestly complied with, the contempt proceedings closed-
Constitution of India, Article I 29-Environmental la~1i. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Suo Motu Contempt Petition No. 
300 of2000. 
IN 
I.A. Nos. 22 and 1206. 
In Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
K.N. Raval, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar (AC), K.K. 
E 
F 
Venugopal, V.A. Mollta, Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan. J.b. Jain, M.C. 
Mehta, K.C. Kaushik: Krishan Mahajan, S.N. Terdol, Ms. Anil Katiyar, C.V. 
Subba Rao, R.N. Verma, C. Radhakrishna, Ajay Sharma, B.V. Bairam Das, D.B. G 
Goburdhun, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ms. Indra Sawhney, D.K. 
Singh, R.C. Verma, Ms. Sheil Sethi, Vijay Panjwani, V.B. Saharya, Ramji 
Srinivasan, (Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja) for Manik Karanjawala, R.S. Suri, D.N. 
, Goburdhun, Sushil Kumar Jain. M.A. Chinnaswamy, L.L. Lahoty, Paban K. 
Sharma. Himanshu Shekhar, Mukesh K. Giri, Balbir Singh Gupta, Pradeep 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2001) 3 S.C.R. 
A Gupta, D.B. Vohra, Rajesh Mittra, Ms. Kamlesh Jain, Yijay Kumar, Mohd. Arif, 
Rakesh K. Shanna, N.K. Sahoo, Suresh Tripathy, D.N. Goburdhun, Ms. Pratibha 
Jain, A.P. Dhamija and Pradeep Agarwal for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
B 
By an order passed in April, 1996, this Court had directed that no non-
conforming industry shall be permitted to carry on its activity after 3 lst of 
December, 1996. As a result thereof at least those industries which was 
operating in residential areas, whose operation did not conform with the 
provisions of the Master Plan, were required to stop their operation by 31st 
C December, 1996. 
Subsequent thereto orders were passed from time to time with regard 
to relocation of the non-conforming industries. Ultimately on 8th September, 
1999 a Division Bench of this Court directed that the entire process of 
relocation of the industries should be completed by 31st December, 1999 and 
D if the industries in the residential area could not be shifted and relocated for 
any reason whatsoever by 31st December, 1999 then those industries shall be 
closed down. 
Thereafter various affidavits were filed on behalf of the Union of India, 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and NCT, Delhi which show that there was 
E a continuous breach of orders of this Court. Neither industrial estates had 
been established nor plots allotted to enable relocation nor units working in 
non-conforming areas including residential areas were shut down. 
F 
By reason of the non-compliance of the orders of this Court on 14th 
November, 2000 notices were issued to the Chief Secretary, NCT, Delhi and 
also to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi to show cause why 
they should not be punished for contempt for the continued inaction on the 
part of the NCT, Delhi and for non-compliance of the various order passed 
by this Court starting from 1996 and inch,1ding the orders dated 8th Septembe.r, 
1999, 30th August, 2000 and 12th September, 2000 regarding the closing of 
G the polluting units situated in the residential areas. 
In the affidavit filed by Shri P.S. Bhatnagar, Chief Secretary, Government 
of NCT. Delhi it has been stated that he assumed charge on 23rd March, 2000 
as the Chief Secretary and has been diligently working towards ensuring 
compliance of the orders of this Court. While indicating steps which has been 
H taken with regard to the implementation of the said orders it has been stated 
.-i· 
' 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
711 
by him that he neither deliberately nor intentionally disobeyed any orders of A 
this Court. Nonetheless he tendered an unqualified apology to this Court. 
A somewhat similar affidavit has been filed by Shri S.P. Aggarwal, 
Commissioner,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.