M.C Mehta v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

2. This Court by order dated 30-12-1996 passed in M.C Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353 in paragraph 2 observed as under:

“2. Lord Roberts in his work ‘Forty-one years in India’ describes the Taj as under:

‘Neither words nor pencil could give to the most imaginative reader the slightest idea of all the satisfying beauty and purity of this glorious conception. To those who have not seen it, I would say, — Go to India; the Taj alone is well worth the journey.’

A poet describes the Taj as under:

‘It is too pure, too holy to be the work of human hands. Angels must have brought it from heaven and a glass case should be thrown over it to preserve it from each breath of air.’

Sammuel Smith in his book about the Taj explains the impact as under:

‘We stood spellbound for a few minutes at this lovely apparition; it hardly seems of the earth. It is more like a dream of celestial beauty, no words can describe it. We felt that all previous sights were damned in comparison. No such effect is produced by the first view of St. Peter's or Milan or Cologne Cathedrals. They are all majestic, but this is enchantment itself. So perfect is its form that all other structures seem clumsy.’ ”

3. A number of directions were issued by the said order to protect the national and world heritage monument, namely, the Taj. Thereafter, a number of interim applications were filed by persons concerned who were required to shift their business or manufacturing activities and the matter was prolonged from time to time. This Court has also appointed a Monitoring Committee to report whether the directions issued by this Court are complied with or not.

4. On 25-3-2003, on behalf of the Monitoring Committee, IA No. 376 of 2003 was filed before this Court wherein it was stated that the U.P Government has started a project to divert the river Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops, amusement activities like Appu Ghar in Delhi etc. in terms of development of Heritage Corridor for TTZ area at Agra. On that application notice was issued to all parties concerned.

5. On 1-5-2003 the following order was passed:

“2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the affidavit dated 29-4-2003 of Dr (Mrs) Sunita V. Auluck, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi (tendered in court) the area which is sought to be reclaimed is divided into four parts as under:

Component A

On the right bank between upstream-end of Taj Mahal to upstream-end of Fort (near railway bridge).

Component B

On the left bank between Ram Bagh and opposite Agra Fort and upstream of Ram Bagh.

Component C

On the right-bank upstream of Agra Fort up to the point opposite of Ram Bagh.

Component D

On the left bank from the point opposite the upstream of Agra Fort to near Mehtab Bagh and the right-bank downstream of the Taj.

3. For Component A, the learned counsel appearing for the State Government states that at present no work of reclamation of land is going on. For Component B, on the left bank between Ram Bagh and opposite Agra Fort, it is stated that reclamation of 25 acres of land out of 40 acres of land is over. With regard to Components C and D, no reclamation work is done. He further submits that henceforth the State Government would not carry out any further reclamation work except filling of sand. For the work done in the area of Components A and B, it would be open to the State Government to have temporary embankment by using stones and clay. However, this would be subject to further directions and clearance by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.

4. Meantime, the Central Water Power Research Station, Khadakwasla would assess the behaviour of the river and impact of reclamation of riverbed on the monuments in Agra and its protection thereof. The entire cost of this study would be borne by the Central Government.”

6. Despite the aforesaid order, for some unknown reasons reclamation/some work continued.

7. Thereafter, newspaper reports drew the attention of the authority concerned. Headings of the said reports are as under:

1. oh taj! no one knows who cleared this.

2. oh taj! no one knows who cleared construction.

8. It appears that because of various newspaper reports attention of the authorities concerned was drawn to the fact that some irregularities or illegalities are going on and thereafter, it is stated that the Central Government intervened with the said project and directed to stop any further construction.

9. Mr Krishan Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Monitoring Committee has further drawn our attention to the report (dated 24-4-2003) of the Expert Committee which examined the detailed project reports for construction of the Heritage Corridor at Agra. The report inter alia indicates that the project DPRs appeared to be a product of great hurry and prepared without any adequate study and consideration.

10. It has also pointed as under:

“However, no evidence of study on the land or land-use, no details of the occupation of this land have been provided. There does not seem to be any paucity of land. In view of this, the Committee members did not appreciate the need for reclamation of land from the bed of the river as there is plenty of land available for greening as ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The consultants (NPCC) have also claimed that it will not affect the character of ecology. However, no study on the ecology of the river or the impact on the ecology has been provided. There does not appear to be any study made on this aspect and the claim is wholly unfounded.

The project deals with six monuments out of which two are world heritage monuments, these are Agra Fort and Taj Mahal and the rest four are national monuments. Out of which Taj Mahal happens to be one of the seven most important monuments in the world. The protection and conservation of these monuments are of international concern. Any modification in the setting of these monuments by any form of development requires very careful consideration. Unfortunately, no such study has been conducted by the consultants and their proposal is wholly unfounded on any serious study. Several studies are necessary to arrive at any project relating to world heritage sites, none of which have been conducted.

The representatives of ASI informed that the consultants have not conducted any study on the possible impact on the foundation of Taj Mahal due to changes in the regime of the river caused by land filling. The foundation details of the Taj Mahal need to be studied if the water regime is to be altered. Therefore, the proposal provided by the consultants is not based on sound study and places the world heritage monument under undue risk.

The report of IIT, Roorkee was also examined by the Committee and it was brought to notice that width on the bend should be between 1.5 to 5.5 times Laccy's width. Already the width of the river is less than this requirement on which the Taj Mahal is located. Any further reduction may be dangerous. Therefore, the proposal is not based on safety consideration of this world heritage monument.”

11. Despite the aforesaid report, for some ulterior motive under the directions of some persons without getting necessary clearance from the authority concerned, work of the project continued.

12. It is also painful to note that NPCC which is a Government of India undertaking has placed a board at the site stating as under:

“npcc ltd., a government of india enterprise, engaged for development of heritage corridor for ttz area at agra under the directives of the hon'ble supreme court of india”

13. However, on this aspect the learned Senior Counsel Mr Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of NPCC submitted that there is an apparent mistake committed because of work orders issued by the State Government. It is difficult to find out at this stage whether it is a mistake or intentional misstatement.

14. It is also painful to note that instead of creating something new which could be classified as a world heritage or national heritage, the persons concerned who are in power are trying to damage or endanger the world heritage by their hasty/irregular/illegal activities.

15. Considering all these aspects as well as the allegations made by the ex-Standing Counsel of the State of U.P Mr Ajay Agarwal, it is apparent that detailed inquiry is necessary. In this view of the matter, for finding out who cleared the project, for what purpose it was cleared without obtaining necessary sanction from the department concerned and whether there was any illegality or irregularity committed by the officers/persons, enquiry by CBI is necessary.

16. We, therefore, direct the Director of CBI to see that inquiry with regard to any illegality/irregularity committed by the officers/persons be conducted at the earliest. We hope and expect that the premier investigating agency would take immediate steps to submit the report to this Court. Preliminary report be submitted within four weeks from today and final report be submitted within two months from today.

17. Mr Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India states that necessary action would be taken by the authority concerned and report would be submitted to this Court at the earliest. It would be open to the inquiring agency to take into consideration various orders passed by this Court as well as take the assistance of Mr Krishan Mahajan who is the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee and others.

18. Stand over to 21-8-2003.