LexVINEET KUMAR MATHUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
VINEET KUMAR MATHUR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
JANUARY 23, 1996
B
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court :
Supreme Court's order for closure of Mohan Meakin's plant for not
C conforming to anti-pollution standards-Operating the plant in contravention
of the orders-Subsequently running the plant with the "consent" obtained
from Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, also in contravention of the
orders-Plea that as per advice of technical experts if the plant remained
closed for more than seven days, process of destabilisation would set in which
would be very harmful to the general public-Subsequent 1unning of the plant
D with "consent" from UP Pollution Control Board was with stipulation that the
plant should achieve the prescribed standards by a c~rtain dat~'Consent" by
the Board also violative of the order of Supreme Court-{Jnconditional
apology tendered by contemnors rejected-Guilty of contempt not merely in
a technical sense but in real sense-Compensatory fine of Rs. 5 /akhs to be
E deposited in Court within four weeks-On the deposit being made contempt
proceedings would stand dropped-in default each contemnor to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one montlt--Amount if deposited to be
utilised for purposes connected with cleaning of Gomti Rivei-fndustrial
Pollution.
F
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (c) No. 327 of
1990.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
F.S. Nariman, M.C. Bhandare, A.B. Rohtagi, D.A. Dave, P.H.
G Parekh, Ms. Bina Madhvan, Sandeep Parekh, Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina
(
•
Gupta, Neeraj Sharma, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, K.K.
"
Mohan, A.K. Srivastava, P. Misra. Arun K. Sharma for S.K. Jain, S. Wasim,
A. Qadri for Ms. Anil Katiyar, Sri Narain, Arvind Minocha, R.
Ramachandran, AK. Sil, Mrs. L. Kaushik, R.P. Singh, K. Vasdev, Shakeel
H Ahmad, Vmay Garg, R.B. Misra, S.K. Misra and Shakil Ahmed Syed for
848
\
J
•
V.K MATHUR v. U.0.1.
849
the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This Order may be read in continuation of our Order dated Novem-
ber 8, 1995.
Two contempt notices have been issued to the respondents herein,
Brig. Kapil Mohan and Sri Yogesh Kumar, Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer respectively of Mohan Meakins Limited. The first per-
tains to their operating the plant between 7th and 11th April in contraven-
tion of the orders of this Court dated January 15, 1993 while the second
notice concerns their obtaining the "consent" from the Utter Pradesh
Pollution Control Board [U.P.P.C.B.] on April 21, 1993 and operating their
plant on that basis in contravention of the said order dated January 15,
1993. The arguments on the first notice were heard on the previous day
A
B
c
of hearing when the contempt case against the ex-officio Chairman and
Member-Secretary of U.P.P.C.B. was heard. On the second notice, we have D
now heard Sri F.S. Nariman for the contemnors. Sri P.H. Parekh again
assisted us as anticus curiae .
We shall deal with the first notice in the first instance. In terms of
the order dated January 15, 1993, Mohan Meakin's plant was closed on
and with effect from April 1, 1993 since the P.C.B. refused to certify that E
the said plant has attained the prescribed level of anti-pollution standards.
There was no order from this Court or from the P. C.B. permitting the said
plant to operate. It is an admitted fact that the said plant was operated
between 7th and 11th April, 1993. The explanation offered by the contem-
nors for it is contained in the affidavit filed by Sri Y ogesh Kumar on April F
27, 1993 and the affidavit filed by Brig. Kapil Mohan on May 1, 1993. Their
case is that the running of the plant between the said two dates was
necessary to avoid danger to public health and safety. It is stated that
according to the advice of the technical experts, if the plant had remained
closed for more than seven days, process of de-stabilisation would set in
which could have been very harmful to the general public. It is in view of G
the said advice, they stated, they started the plant just to avoid the process
of de-stabilisation from setting in. They also asserted that before starting
the plant, Sri Yogesh Kumar filed an affidavit in this Court stating the
correct facts and the compulsions under which the unit had to work for a
short period. Brig. Kapil Mohan, Managing Director, stated in addition H
850
SUPREExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.