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

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 27-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
M.C.MEHTA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 27, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA, S.H. KAPADIA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) 
B 
Environmental Law: 
Public Interest Litigation-Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ)-Taj Heritage 
Corridor-Supreme Court monitored cases-Ordered a CBI enquiry as to C 
who Cleared the Taj Heritage Corridor project, for what purpose it was 
cleared and why it was cleared without the sanction of the competent 
authority-In that order this Court had specifically directed the CBI Officer 
lo interrogate the persons involved and also to verify their assets because 
it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without proper D 
sanction-The Director, CBI filed a Status Report relying on the opinion of 
the Attorney General for India and also indicated that action would be taken 
to file a closure report under S. 173 Cr.P.C.-Correctness of-Held: 
Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police-
But the court's jurisdiction to have control in this behalf is beyond any 
controversy-The Magistrate alone has the final say in the matter-The E 
Director, CBI has not given his independent opinion-He has merely relied 
upon the opinion of the Attorney General-Since there was no difference of 
opinion, there was no question of the Director, CBI referring the matter to 
the Attorney Genera/for India-The Status Report dated 31.12.2004 is rejecte,d 
as it is a charade of the performance of duty by the CBl~Bl directed to 
place evidence/material collected during its investigation before Court in F 
accordance with S. 173(2) Cr.P.C.-Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 
1946, S. 2-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 173(2)~onstitution of 
India, 1950, Arts. 32 and 142-CBl (Crime) Manual, 2005, Clauses 6.1 and 
19.15. 
The State Government started a project known as Taj Heritage Corridor G 
to divert the Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres between Agra Fort and the Taj 
and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement 
activities in terms of development of heritage Corridor for Taj Trapezium Zone 
(TTZ) at Agra. This led to the filing of an Interlocutory Application in a Civil 
683 
H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A Writ Petition pending before this Court. This Court ordered a Central Bureau 
of Investigation (CBI) enquiry as to who cleared the project, for what purpose 
it was cleared and why it was cleared without the sanction of the competent 
authority. In that order this Court had specifically directed the CBI Officer 
to interrogate the persons involved and also to verify their assets because it 
B was alleged that an amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without proper 
sanction. 
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a report was submitted by the CBI. 
Considering the serious irregularities/illegalities committed in carrying out 
the so-called Taj Heritage Corridor project, this Court, inter alia, directed 
C the CBI to register an FIR and make further investigation in accordance with 
law. By the said order, the CBI was directed to take appropriate steps for 
holding investigations against the former Chief Minister and the former 
Minister for Environment. The CBI was also directed to make investigations 
against other officers and persons involved in the matter. 
D 
The Director, CBI submitted his Status Report in which he opined that, 
E 
in view of the opinion of the Attorney General for India that in the absence of 
any evidence to suggest criminal mens rea on the part of any individual and 
due to lack of evidence, the evidence was not sufficient to launch prosecution. 
He further submitted that action would be taken to file a closure report under 
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963. 
Disposing of the application, this Court 
HELD: Per S.H. Kapadia, (for himself and Jain, J) 
l. At the outset, it is stated that this Court has repeatedly emphasized 
F that in the Supreme Court monitored cases this Court is concerned with 
ensuring proper and honest performance of its duty by the Central Bureau of 
Investigation (CBI) and that this Court is not concerned with the merits of 
the accusations in investigation, which are to be determined at the trial on 
the filing of the charge-sheet in the competent court, according to the ordinary 
procedure prescribed by law. Therefore, the question which has to be decided 
G is whether the administrative hierarchy of officers in the CBI, in the present 
case, has performed their duties i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.