- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M.C Mehta v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The present order disposes of several Interlocutory Applications (IAs) in the long-running public interest litigation M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, concerning protection of the Taj Mahal and the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ).
- IA No. 452 (CBI): The Central Bureau of Investigation sought modification of this Court’s earlier order dated 4-4-2005 to permit repatriation of Shri Nirajnayan, an officer who had been on deputation with the CBI for about seven years and had completed investigation in two connected criminal matters.
- IA No. 376 (ASI): The Archaeological Survey of India filed a draft reply regarding implementation of the Court’s judgment dated 30-12-1996 (1997) 2 SCC 353. The Court found the draft inadequate and demanded a proper affidavit within ten days.
- IA No. 404 & Other IAs: Various pending applications (Nos. 451, 438, 431, etc.) were directed to be listed after disposal of the current applications.
- Implementation Review: Relying on paragraph 38 of the 1996 judgment, the Court reviewed the status of measures meant to reduce pollution and protect heritage in the TTZ, issuing fresh directions to State and Central authorities, the TTZ Board and the amicus curiae.
- IA re: Newspaper Report (6-8-2006): A news item alleging management issues at the Taj was taken on record and notices were issued to relevant local authorities, including the Agra Development Authority and CISF.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the earlier order dated 4-4-2005 should be modified to allow the repatriation of Shri Nirajnayan to his parent cadre.
- What further directions are necessary to secure implementation of the Court’s judgment dated 30-12-1996 concerning pollution control and heritage protection in the Taj Trapezium Zone.
- What immediate responses are required from the Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Development Authority, CISF and other agencies regarding crowd-management and environmental safeguards at the Taj Mahal.
Arguments of the Parties
Central Bureau of Investigation (Applicant in IA 452)
- Shri Nirajnayan’s deputation with the CBI had lasted approximately seven years; his investigative tasks were complete and his services were no longer required.
- The Central Vigilance Commission had expressly stated it had no objection to the officer’s repatriation.
U.P. Power Corporation (Statement recorded under IA 376)
- Submitted that funds sanctioned by the Planning Commission (Rs 99.54 crores) had been put to use to provide uninterrupted electricity to the TTZ, with generators required only for local faults.
Amicus Curiae
- Contended that, notwithstanding the sanctioned funds, no substantial progress had occurred after the foundation stones for the electricity projects were laid.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 4-4-2005 (2012) 8 SCC 136 | Earlier direction governing the deputation of Shri Nirajnayan | Sought to be modified to permit repatriation of the officer |
| Order dated 25-10-2004 (2007) 1 SCC 137 | Recorded that the Court was not monitoring the disproportionate assets investigation | Cited to emphasise that no further Court supervision was needed on that aspect, bolstering the request to repatriate the officer |
| Main judgment dated 30-12-1996 (1997) 2 SCC 353 | Comprehensive directions for pollution control and heritage protection in the TTZ | Formed the basis for current monitoring; paragraph 38 was reproduced and each sub-issue reviewed afresh |
| Order dated 10-4-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 123 | Directions regarding the Agra bypass and electricity projects | Referenced while seeking updated status reports on the bypass and electricity supply |
| Orders dated 30-8-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 128 and connected orders of 10-5-1996, 4-9-1996, 10-9-1996 | Allocation of Rs 99.54 crores and other measures for uninterrupted electricity and water supply in the TTZ | Used to justify calling for affidavits from State authorities and the TTZ Board on implementation status |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
- IA 452 (CBI): The Court observed that (i) investigations in both the criminal case and the disproportionate-assets inquiry were complete, (ii) the officer had already served seven years on deputation, and (iii) the Central Vigilance Commission had no objection. Considering these factors, and noting that it was not itself monitoring the assets case, the Court found no impediment to repatriation and allowed the application.
- IA 376 (ASI): After perusing the draft affidavit, the Court held it unsatisfactory and directed a “responsible officer” of ASI to file a comprehensive affidavit within ten days detailing steps taken to implement the 1996 judgment.
- Monitoring of Paragraph 38 Issues: The Court systematically revisited each sub-paragraph of para 38 of the 1996 judgment.
- (a) & (b) Hydrocracker and hospital projects: deemed complete; no further action for now.
- (c) Agra bypass: State of U.P. ordered to file a status report on actual construction.
- (d) Electricity projects: Based on conflicting submissions from U.P. Power Corporation and the amicus, affidavits were ordered from the Managing Director, Principal Secretary (Environment) and the TTZ Board.
- (f) Green belt: Amicus requested to undertake a site visit and file a fresh status report.
- (g) Mission Management Board funds: Chief Secretary, U.P., directed to report on balances and pending proposals.
- (i) Heritage-city status: Solicitor General asked to obtain instructions from the Union Government.
- Newspaper Report IA: Treating a 6-8-2006 newspaper article as potential evidence of mismanagement, the Court issued notices to the Agra Development Authority, its usual counsel, and the CISF Commandant. Copies of the report were forwarded for their response.
- Fixing Timelines: The Court set concrete dates for filing status reports (on or before 25-8-2006) and for listing various applications (21-8-2006 and 28-8-2006), signalling continued judicial monitoring.
Holding and Implications
IA 452 was ALLOWED: The CBI is authorised to release Shri Nirajnayan for repatriation to his parent cadre, subject to any future orders of a competent court.
All other IAs were kept pending with specific interim directions for affidavits, status reports and appearance of concerned officials. The Court’s orders reinforce its ongoing supervisory jurisdiction over environmental and heritage-protection measures in the Taj Trapezium Zone. No new legal precedent was set, but the directives impose immediate administrative obligations on State and Central authorities.
Order
IA No. 452
1. An application has been filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation for modification of this Court's order dated 4-4-2005 (2012) 8 SCC 136, inter alia, on the premise that the services of Shri Nirajnayan who was connected with the investigation of an offence, are no longer required.
2. In the said application it has categorically been stated that the aforesaid Shri Nirajnayan has been on deputation with CBI for about seven years and in the interest of administration it is necessary to repatriate him to his parent cadre. It is stated that the investigation in the criminal case against the authorities/officers concerned is over. It is also stated that the investigation in the matter of acquisition of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income of the authorities/officers concerned is also over.
3. It may also be placed on record that the CVC has no objection if Shri Nirajnayan is repatriated to his parent cadre. We may also notice that it has been observed in our order dated 25-10-2004 (2007) 1 SCC 137 that this Court has not been monitoring the case of disproportionate assets.
4. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the prayer made in the application should be allowed and CBI may release Shri Nirajnayan in order to repatriate him to his parent cadre subject to any other or further orders which may be passed by an appropriate court, if any occasion arises therefor. The IA is allowed accordingly.
IA No. 404
5. Put up after the disposal of IAs Nos. 451, 438, 431, etc., etc. in WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984.
IA No. 376
6. A draft reply on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has been filed in Court today. We are not satisfied with the same. A responsible officer must file a proper affidavit within 10 days stating therein as to what steps have been taken in regard to the implementation of this Court's order dated 30-12-1996 (1997) 2 SCC 353.
7. We have been taken through the main judgment of this Court dated 30-12-1996 (1997) 2 SCC 353. Para 38 of the said judgment reads as under: (M.C Mehta case (1997) 2 SCC 353)
“38. This Court is separately monitoring the following issues for controlling air pollution in TTZ:
(a) The setting up of hydrocracker unit and various other devices by the Mathura Refinery.
(b) The setting up of fifty-bed hospital and two mobile dispensaries by the Mathura Refinery to provide medical aid to the people living in the surrounding areas (Court order dated 7-8-1996 IA No. 85 of 1996 in WP (C) No. 3727 of 1985).
(c) Construction of Agra bypass to divert all the traffic which passes through the city. Under directions of this Court, 24 km stretch of the bypass shall be completed by the end of December 1996. (Court order dated 10-4-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 123).
(d) Additional amount of Rs 99.54 crores sanctioned by the Planning Commission to be utilised by the State Government for the construction of electricity supply projects to ensure 100% uninterrupted electricity to the TTZ. This is necessary to stop the operation of generating sets which are major source of air pollution in the TTZ. (Court orders dated 10-4-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 123, 10-5-1996 WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984, 30-8-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 128, 4-9-1996 WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984 and 10-9-1996.)
(e) The construction of Gokul Barrage, water supply work of Gokul Barrage, roads around Gokul Barrage, Agra Barrage and water supply of Agra Barrage, have also been undertaken on a time-schedule basis to supply drinking water to the residents of Agra and to bring life into River Yamuna which is next to the Taj. (Court orders dated 10-5-1996 WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984 and 30-8-1996 (2012) 8 SCC 128.)
(f) Green belt as recommended by Neeri has been set up around the Taj. Pursuant to continuous monitoring of this Court, the green belt has become a reality.
(g) This Court suggested to the Planning Commission by order dated 4-9-1996 WP (C) No. 13381 of 1984 to consider sanctioning separate allocation for the city of Agra and the creation of separate cell under the control of Central Government to safeguard and preserve the Taj, the city of Agra and other national heritage monuments in the TTZ.
(h) All emporia and shops functioning within the Taj premises have been directed to be closed.
(i) Directions have been issued to the Government of India to decide the issue, pertaining to declaration of Agra as heritage city within two months.”
8. With a view to consider the implementation of the said judgment, we issue the following directions seriatim:
(a) Re: Setting up of hydrocracker unit and other devices by the Mathura Refinery. No further action is required to be taken.
(b) Re: Setting up of fifty-bed hospital. For the present and unless something is brought to our notice in future no immediate further action is necessary.
(c) Re: Construction of Agra Bypass. The State of U.P is hereby directed to submit a status report as to whether a bypass has been constructed to divert all the traffic which passes through the city.
(d) Re: Sanction of additional amount of Rs 99.54 crores for construction of electricity supply projects by the Planning Commission.
(i) It is stated by Mr Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of U.P Power Corporation that the said sum was sanctioned by the Planning Commission and pursuant thereto steps have been taken for supply of uninterrupted electricity to the TTZ area. The learned counsel, however, stated that only in case of trips owing to local faults, are generators required to be operated and not otherwise.
(ii) According to the learned amicus curiae, Mr Krishan Mahajan, after laying the foundation stone of the electricity projects no further action has been taken. Let the Managing Director of U.P Power Corporation and the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, State of U.P, file status report/affidavit in this regard. Let a status report in this regard be also filed by the TTZ Board.
(f) Re: Green belt as recommended by Neeri. The learned amicus curiae is requested to visit the area and submit a fresh status report.
(g) Re: The Chief Secretary of the State of U.P on behalf of the Mission Management Board is directed to submit a report as to the amount deposited and the amount lying with it and the proposals pending with it in this behalf.
(i) Re: The learned Solicitor General of India is requested to seek instructions as to what steps have been taken by the Government of India on the issue pertaining to the declaration of Agra as a heritage city.
IA No. … (Re: Newspaper Report dated 6-8-2006)
9. Issue notice. Let notice be issued to the Agra Development Authority also. Notice may also be served upon Mr Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who normally appears for the said authority.
10. A newspaper report dated 6-8-2006 has been placed before us by Mr M.C Mehta. Let this report be placed on record and a copy thereof be sent to the Chairman, Agra Development Authority for his response thereto.
11. Issue notice also to the Commandant of the CISF, Agra.
12. We hope and trust that for meeting emergent situations i.e when hundreds of people visit the Taj at the same time, the authorities concerned, namely, ASI, CISF and the Agra Development Authority shall apply their mind and come out with an agreed solution.
13. List this IA on 21-8-2006.
14. All the status reports and responses thereto, if any, may be filed on or before 25-8-2006. List all other IAs on 28-8-2006.
Court Masters
Alert