LexM.C.MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
M.C.MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
OCTOBER 10, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950:
C
Article 32 read with Artic~~s 49(8) and 51A-Scope of-"Taj
Corridor Scam "-Writ petition as public interest litigation for issuance
of writ of mandamus-Pursuant to direction of Court FIR registered
leading to investigation into role of Chief Minister and a Minister of
State and ultimately case coming before Special Court-Governor of
D State refusing to accord sanction-IA by amicus curiae for setting aside
order of Governor-HELD: Once a final report has been filed in terms
ofs. I 73(1) Cr.PC, it is the Magistrate alone who can take appropriate
decision in the matter-Direction which could be issued had already
been issued by Supreme Court in its earlier order-If no sanction of
Governor was required or if he has committed an error in passing the
E order, appropriate Court would be entitled to deal therewith--,-Code
of Criminal Procedure, 19 7 3-s. l 7 3 (1 )-Public Interest Litigation.
In the "Taj Heritage Corridor Project" case, on the report of
the CBI pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, an FIR
-1 ..,
F was registered and the role of the then Chief Minister and the
Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh was
investigated by the CBI. For further course to be adopted directions
were given by the Supreme Court on 27.11.2006* and the said order
was complied with. The Special Judge directed the CBI to obtain
G sanction of the Governor of the State, who refused to accord
sanction. The amicus curiae who was assisting the Court filed the
· "(""
instant IA, inter alia, contending that the Supreme Court, in terms
of the provisions of Article 49 of the Constitution oflndia should set
aside the order of the Governor ofUttar Pradesh refusing to accord
H
1060
!-
M.C. MEHTAv. UNION OF INDIA
1061
sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister and the Minister as, A
keeping in view the existing political scenario, the CBI may not show
further interest in the matter.
Dismissing the application, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Judiciary may step in where it finds that the actions B
on the part of the Legislature or the Executive are illegal or
unconstitutional but the same by itself would not mean that public
interest litigation, in a case of this nature, should be converted into
an adversarial litigation. The jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ
of continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is c
carried out. Once the Court satisfies itself that a proper
investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take over
the functions of the Magistrate or pass any order which would
interfere with its judicial functions. Once a final report has been filed
in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal D
Procedure, 1973 it is the Magistrate and Magistrate alone who can
take appropriate decision in the matter one way or the other. A
judicial order passed by a Magistrate may be right or wrong, but
having regard to the hierarchy of the courts, the matter which would
fall for consideration before the higher court should not be a subject E
matter of a decision of this Court at this stage.
[Para 8] [1065-D, E, F, G; 1066-A]
1.2. Any direction which could be issued, has already been issued
by the Court on 27.11.2006* and it need not go further than what
has been said therein. If no sanction of the Governor was required F
or if he has committed an error in passing the said order, the
appropriate court, would be entitled to deal therewith.
[Para 11and13] [1067-D; 1068-A, B]
*MC Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) v. Union of India and Ors., G
[2006] Supp. 9 SCR 683=[2007] 1 SCC 110, relied on.
Vineet Narain and Ors. v. Union of India, [1998] 1 SCC 226;
Raj iv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' VIII v. Union of India, [2006] 6 SCC 613
and Union oflndiav.Prakash P. HindujaandAnr., [2003] 6SCC195,
referred to.
H
);
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
- \
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
A
B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.A. NO. 465.
IN
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13381 of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia)
Ghoolam, E. V ahanvati, S.G .. A. Sharan, A.S.G., Jyotindra Mishra
Adv. Genl., Ajay Siwach, A.A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G.,
Dipankar Gupta, M.N. Rao, K.K. Venugopal, Dinesh Dwivedi, Krishan
Mahajan, (A.C.), Shilpa Chauhan, K. Uma Shankar, Rajesh Singh,
C A.D.N. Rao, Devadatt Kamat, P. Parmeshwaran, GaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.