VINEET KUMAR MATHUR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 08-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VINEET KUMAR MATHUR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 8, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, .TJ.] 
Contempt of Court Act, 1971 : 
Environme11tal pollution-~iver Gomti-Caused by industries-
C Deficiencies in effluent treatmmt plant-Not removed--lndustries ordered to 
stop functioning-Consent granted by State Pollution Control Board to 1w1 
industry in violation of Court Orde,-Held : concemed officers guilty of 
Contempt of Court-However the u11conditional apology accepted-Severe 
waming administered. 
D 
A letter written by petitioner pointing out the pollution caused in 
the river Gomti and its causes, was treated as a 'writ petition by this Court 
and orders passed from time to time. Mohan Meakins Breweries was said 
to be one of the industries polluting the river. On January 15, 1993 this 
Court pass~d an order that Mohan Meakins should remove the deficien-
E cies in its effiuent treatment plant by 21st March, 1993. Since it did not 
do so no consent was granted to it by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. It 
stopped functioning from 1st April, 1993 onwards. 
On April 2, 1993, Mohan Meakins addressed a letter to the Pollution 
Control Board (P.C.B.) stating that they have since complied with the 
F 
order of this Court and, therefore, the consent may not be granted to them 
under the Water Act, 1974. The .P.C.B. granted the consent on April 21, 
1993. But P.C.B. did not disclose this fact to this Court. The plant of 
Mohan Meakins started functioning with effect from April 23, 1993. 
This Court issued a notice to D, Member-Secretary, Uttar Pradesh 
G Pollution Control Board to show cause why he should not be punished for 
contempt of this Court for granting consent in violation of the orders of 
this Court dated January 15, 1993. 
On May 13, 1994 D stated that he had put up a note to the Chairman 
· H 
for granting consent to Mohan Meakins in view of the Uttar Pradesh 
on< 
u--
V.K. MATHUR v. U.0.1. 
807 
Government order dated April 20, 1993, mentioning at the same time that A 
the consent so granted shall be subject to the orders of this Court. He 
further stated that "the Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control Board/Secretary 
(Environment), Government ofU.P. directed him not to raise any objection 
in granting consent to M/s. Mohan Meakins in view of G.O. dated 20.4_.1993 
since this unit had been established before 16.5.1.991 . and requested time 
till 31.12.1993 to achieve the standard." In view of the said direction he had 
to and did issue the "consenf
1
• 
On July 20, 1994, Special Secretary, Environment, U.P. stated that 
B 
the said G.O. dated 20.4.1993 was given by the U.P. Government to the 
P.C.B. but they were general instructions and were not meant for a par· C 
ticular industry. It was further stated that any such general instructions 
were not .supposed to be relied upon by the P.C.B. to Act in contravention 
of this Court's order. 
On May 4, 1995, notice to P, the then Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh D 
Pollution Control Board-cum-Secretary (Environment) was ·issued to show 
cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court. P 
stated that as Mohan _Meakins was a unit established prior to 16.5.1991 
and installed effiuent treatment plant and also because the B.O.D. level 
was only marginally higher than the prescribed norms and in view of G.O. 
dated 20.4.1993 consent was granted. 
E 
Since this explanation was not satisfactory a notice was issued on 
August 25, 1995 calling upon P to answer the charge of contempt in 
response to which P filed an affidavit on October 12, 1995. In this allidavit, 
he tendered his unconditional apology for violating the orders of this 
F 
Court and prayed that in the circumstances stated therein his nncondi· 
tional apology might be accepted. 
l' admitted that it was a lapse on his part, as Chairman of the 
Pollution Control Board, in not ensuring that this Court was informed of 
the said consent immediately and in not obtaining appropriate orders in G 
that behalf. He further stated that he was a senior member of the I.A.S. 
Cadre, that in his entire career he had never violated the orders of the 
Court and that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit, he might be 
pardoned. He assured that he would never give any occasion for similar 
complaint. 
H 
--
808 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. P was the Chairman and D was a Member-Secretary of 
the Uttar Pradesh 

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