M.C. Mehta vs Union Of India & Ors
- SCC(1998) 6 SCC 63
- Neutral1998 INSC 274
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 2963
- SCR[1998] 3 SCR 918
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court has previously given directions to state authorities to control vehicular pollution within a specified timeframe, and despite assurances given through affidavits those directions have not been implemented, the court may issue fresh mandatory directions with stricter timelines and warn that failure to comply will invite action under the Contempt of Courts Act. Where environmental protection requires urgent action and state authorities have demonstrated apathy in implementing court directions despite the gravity of the problem, the court may approve and enforce a comprehensive action plan with fixed timeframes proposed by an expert committee, requiring strict adherence and public communication of those directions by all implementing authorities.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Hon'ble Dr.Justice A.S.Anand Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N.Kirpal Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.N.Khare Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Harish N.Salve, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), P.P. Malhotra, Shanti Bhushan, K.Parasaran, Sr.Advs., Uday Umesh Lalit, Manoj Prasad, Kailash Vasdev, Mrs. Indira Sawhney, Arvind K.Sharma, Mrs. Anubha Jain, Mrs. K.P. Mittal, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Wasim A.Quadri, Mrs. anil Katiyar, Ms.Sumitha Inna, D.S.Mehra, Pramod B.Agarwala, Ms. Praveena Gautam, Aruneshwar Gupta, Srilok Nath Rath, Shri Narian, Sandeep Narain, Sushil Kumar Jain, A.P. Dhamija, Ms. Kiran, Ms. Arpita Roy choudhary, (M.A. Chinnaswamy,) Adv. (NP), R.P. Gupta, R. Sasiprabhu, R.K.Maheshwari, Ashok Mathur, Ranjit Kumar, Ejaz Maqbool, Hardeep Singh Anand, Vijay Panjwani, Anis Ahmed Khan, L.K.Pandey, S.B. Upadhyay, S.R. Setia, Sanjay Parikh, Mahabir Singh and Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered:
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 939 OF 1996 Realising the urgency and importance of protection and improvement of the environment, this Court has given direction from time to time and impressed upon the authorities to take urgent steps to tackle the acute problem to vehicular pollution in Delhi. Assurances have been held out to the Court through various affidavits filed by the competent officers that effective steps shall be taken in a phased manner within a specified time span. Inspite of the matter having engaged the attention of this Court for a long time and lengthy debates on each hearing, precious little appear to have been done by the State Administration to check and control the vehicular pollution. We are rather distressed at this apathy of the State Administration, when according to the White Paper published by the Government of India, the vehicular pollution contributes 70% of the air pollution as compared to 20% in 1970. In the White Paper published by the Government of India, a dead line of 1st April, 1998 had been proposed for implementation of major actions. No concrete steps have however, been taken till date in spite of the assurances held out in the affidavit dated November 18, 1996.
We find from the report submitted by the Authority appointed vide Gazette Notification dated 29th January, 1998 that none of the major actions, as proposed, has been implemented. The Authority headed by Shri Bhure Lal has also proposed certain measures for immediate improvement of air quality and has given a time frame but for the time being we are not engaging our attention to that time frame. We are, however, of the view that to arrest the growing pollution of air certain steps need to be taken immediately We, therefore, direct:-
1. Implementation of directions to restrict plying of commercial vehicles including taxis, which are 15 years old, by 2nd October, 1998.
2. Restriction on plying of goods vehicles during the day time shall be strictly enforced by 15th August, 1998.
3. Expansion of pre-mixed oil dispensors (petrol and 2T oil) shall be undertaken by 31st December, 1998.
4. Ban on supply of loose 2T oils at petrol stations and service garages shall be enforced by 31st December, 1998.
The Committee headed by Shri Bhure Lal has also proposed the following measures within the time frame in its action taken report filed in the Court.
Time frame A) Augmentation of public transport (state 1.4.2001 carriage) to 10,000 buses.
B) Elimination of leaded petrol from NCT Delhi 1.9.1998 as proposed by the Authority and agreed to by the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. C) Supply of only pre-mix petrol in all petrol 31.12.2000 filling stations to two-stroke engine vehicles. D) Replacement of all pre 1990 autos and taxis 31.3.2000 with new vehicles on clean fuels.
E) Financial incentives for replacement of all 31.3.2001 post 1990 autos and taxis with new vehicles on clean fuels.
F) Non 8-year old buses to ply except on CNG or 1.4.2000 other clean fuels.
G) Entire city bus fleet (DTC & private) to be 31.3.2001 steadily converted to singly fuel mode on CNG. H) New ISBTs to be built at entry points in North 31.3.2000 I) GAIL to expedite and expand from 9 to 80 CNG 31.3.2000 supply outlets.
J) Two independent fuel testing labs. to be 1.6.1999 established.
K) Automated inspection and maintenance Immediate facilities to be set up for commercial vehicles in the first phase.
L) Comprehensive I/M programme to be started by 31.3.2000 by transport department & private sector. M) CPCB/DPCC to set up new stations and strengthen 1.4.2000 existing air quality monitoring stations for critical pollutants.
We approve the directions given and the time frame fixed by Shri Bhure Lal Committee. The time frame, as fixed by that committee and today by this Court, in consultation with learned counsel for the parties, shall be strictly adhered to by all the authorities who shall also take effective and adequate steps to bring, to the notice of the public both through print and electronic media various directions issued by this Court from time to time in general and the directions hereinabove contained in particular. Report in this behalf shall be filed in the Court within four weeks. We, administer, a strong caution to all concerned that failure to abide by any of the directions hereinabove noticed would invite action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the defaulters.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free