M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. IN THE MATTER OF M/S ASHOK CHABRA & CO. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR ASHOK CHABRA

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 02-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
IN THE MA TIER OF MIS ASH OK CHA BRA & CO. 
BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR ASHOK CHABRA 
APRIL 2, 2003 
[Y. K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Sections 2(b}, 12 and 14-Contempt of court-Hot mix plants-
Categorized as hazardous/noxious industry-Supreme court directing closure 
of such plants--Contemner in defiance of orders continued operating such 
plants-Issuance of contempt notice-Justification of-Held: Act of contemner 
A 
B 
c 
is violative of Court's orders and also of Air (Prevention and Control of D 
Pollution) Act, 1981-Air pollution is causing deleterious effect on the health 
of entire society being environmental hazard, thus guilty of contempt of court 
and exemplary punishment imposed-Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) 
Act, 1981--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 129. 
Section 12-Contempt of court-Tendering of apology-Held: Apology E 
tendered which does not speak of remorse or contrition but more as defence 
is to be rejected-It must be tendered at the earliest opportunity and not at 
the belated stage to escape punishment. 
Section 2(c)--Criminal contempt-Held: Filing false affidavit/statement 
is criminal contempt. 
F 
Respondent was running a hot mix plant industry in Delhi. Expert 
Committee of Central Pollution Control Board categorized such hot mix 
plants as hazardous/noxious industry. This Court on 10th October, 1996 
directed 43 such plants to stop functioning and operating in Delhi and later G 
respondent's plant was also included and for relocation alternative site 
was allotted. However, respondent continued to operate his unit. 
Thereafter, Delhi Pollution Control Committee(DPCC) passed an order 
diretting respondent to stop functioning and operation of hot mix plant 
and thereafter the respondent's unit was sealed. Respondent challenged 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A the order. Competent authority dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved 
respondent filed a writ petition which was dismissed. He then filed another 
writ petition and operation of sealing order was stayed. During the 
pendency of the writ petition this Court directed that the respondent's 
plant must be closed down and, if operating DPCC must take necessary 
B steps. Respondent continued to operate his unit. Thereafter, this Court 
issued contempt notice for violation of orders passed by this Court. 
Respondent then filed an application. 
Respondent contended that he continued to operate the hot mix plant 
in terms of order of High Court and has not committed contempt of any 
C order of this Court; that it found fault with the order of this Court; and 
that in the order of 10th October, 1996 the unit of the contemnor is 
excluded inasmuch as the said order covered only 43 hot mix plants and 
as such the respondent has not committed any contempt. 
D 
Disposing of the matter, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The order dated 10th October, 1996 is of general 
direction ordering the closure of all industries-Hot mix Plant which are 
hazardous and noxious industries; the plant of the respondent is one of 
such units, which has been categorized as hazardous and noxious industry 
by Expert Committee; and that this Court later on included the hot mix 
E plant of the contemner and directed the State Government to make 
available the land for relocation of 44 hot mix plants within three months 
of the passing of the order. 1333-B-CI 
1.2. Filing false affidavit/statement has been held to be criminal 
contempt. The statement of the contemner in one of the paragraphs of 
F the affidavit that he has not committed any contempt and defended his 
action is false to the knowledge of the contemner. (341-CI 
Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia and Anr., 120001 2 SCC 367; Bank 
of India v. Vijay Transport and Ors., 120001 8 SCC 512 and Dhananjay 
G Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1199513 sec 757, relied on. 
1.3. The conduct of the contemner, is beyond condonable limit. It is 
now well-settled principle that an apology is not a weapon of defence to 
purge the guilt of the contemner. At the same time, the apology must be 
sought at the earliest opportunity. The apology tendered by the respondent 
H is at a belated stage to escape punishmfnt of the Court. Furthermore, in 
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
331 
one paragraph of the affidavit he has stated .that he has not committed A 
any contempt and defended his action. In other paragraph of the affidavit, 
it is stated that 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.