LexM.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M.C. MEHTA A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 B [M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: S. 3-Taj Trapezium Matter-/.As in a writ petition before Supreme C Court for removal of industries and other constructions polluting the atmosphere in the vicinity ofTaj Mahal-Diversion of river Yamuna and further construction activities called as Taj Heritage Corridor Project sought to be immediately stopped-Construction work found to have been commenced without clearance of Central Government under s.3-A board displayed at the site falsely stating that NPCC engaged for development D of heritage corridor for TlZ area under directives ofSupreme Court--CBI sub'tlitted report to the Court showing that crores of rupees were released by the authorities of State of UP. including the Minister for Environment without proper sanction by the competent authority and construction work carried on without obtaining techno-foasibility report and detailed project E reports as also without clearance of Central Government-Approval accorded by Chief Minister to the proposal-A subsequent report by CBI showing tampering with record to cover up the commissions and omissions- Directions given to Central Government and the State Government to hold departmental inquiry against erring officials-Directions to CBI to lodge F FIR against the persons involved in the matter and to make further investigation-CBI to take appropriate steps to hold investigation against the then Chief Minister of UP., former Minister of Environment, UP. and other Officers and to submit a self contained note to authorities mentioned in the order-Public functionaries. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutory Application No. 376 of 2003. IN Writ petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984. 925 G H 926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Altaf Ahmed. Additional Solicitor General, Dipankar Gupta, Rakesh Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, R.K. Jain, C.S. Vaidyanathan, M.C. Mehta in Person, Krishan Mahajan, (A.C.), Sushi! Kumar Jain, Imtiaz Ahmed, B Ms. Naghma lmtiaz, V.N. Raghupathy, Atish Dipankar, Santosh Kumar, Chandra Kanta Nayak, Ajay Kr. Aggarwal in person, Kamlendra Mishra, A. Mariarputham, P.Panneswaran, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Rajeev Sharma, Pawan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ashok K. Srivastava, Vijay Panjwani, Pradeep Misra, Manoj K. Mishra, Dr. Sumanat Bhardwaj and Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the appearing c parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : On the basis of the decision rendered by this Court on 30.12.1996 D in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 title MC. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India & Ors., [1997} 2 SCC 353, various LAs. were filed before this Court either for removal of the industries which are polluting the atmosphere in the vicinity of Taj MahaJ or for removal of the encroachment because appropriate steps were not taken by the concerned E authorities. For this purpose, this Court had appointed a Monitoring Committee to report to this Court for the action being taken by the Agra Mission Management Board and other authorities. On 25.3.2003 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee a report was submitted before this Court wherein it was prayed that respondents including the State of U.P. be direct~d to immediately stop the diversion of the river Yamuna and any F further action on the bed of the river in proximity of the International Heritage Monuments till the Union Ministry clears such projects upon an environment impact assessment report. On the said application this Court issued notice on 27.3.2003. At that time, learned counsel for the Monitor- ing Committee as well as Mr. M.C. Mehta insisted that authorities are G proceeding with the construction without appropriate clearance. Still, however, we thought that as the State Government and the Central Government are involved in the matter, they would proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, stay order as prayed for was not granted. Subsequently, on 8.4.2003 along with other matters this I.A. was also considered. On H 9.4.2003 on the request of the learned counsel for the Union of India for M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE 927 studying the detailed project report and for filing necessary affidavit, A matter was adjourned for three weeks. At the relevant t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.