Supreme Court of India
M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE
- Citation
- 2003 INSC 495
- Decided
- 18 September 2003
- Bench
- M B SHAHB N AGRAWAL
Holding
The Court held that the Taj Heritage Corridor project was initiated without the mandatory clearance under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and therefore ordered departmental and CBI inquiries against the officials responsible for the illegal and irregular actions.
Summary
The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition under Article 32 filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of a Monitoring Committee, examined the Taj Heritage Corridor project undertaken near the Taj Mahal. The Court found that construction and river‑bed reclamation work had commenced without the mandatory clearance under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and that several procedural and financial irregularities, including unauthorised release of funds and tampering of official records, were evident. Relying on a CBI preliminary report, the Court directed the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments to hold departmental inquiries against the officials involved, to lodge FIRs, and to investigate possible corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Court also ordered the Central Water Research Station to assess the impact of the works on the monuments and directed the CBI to submit a detailed self‑contained report. No stay was granted on the project, but the Court imposed strict investigative and remedial measures.
Issues considered
- Whether the Taj Heritage Corridor construction was undertaken without the requisite clearance under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- Whether the release of funds for the project violated statutory financial approval procedures of the State and Central governments.
- Whether departmental inquiries and CBI investigations should be ordered against the officials implicated in the alleged irregularities.
- Whether the Court should direct an environmental impact assessment by the Central Water Research Station.
Legislation cited
Subjects
environmental protectionTaj Mahalheritage corridorSection 3CBI inquirydepartmental inquiryillegal constructioncorruptionwater pollutionpublic interest litigation
Judgment
M.C. MEHTA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 B
[M.B. SHAH AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:
S. 3-Taj Trapezium Matter-/.As in a writ petition before Supreme C
Court for removal of industries and other constructions polluting the
atmosphere in the vicinity ofTaj Mahal-Diversion of river Yamuna and
further construction activities called as Taj Heritage Corridor Project
sought to be immediately stopped-Construction work found to have been
commenced without clearance ofCentral Government under s.3-A board
displayed at the site falsely stating that NPCC engaged for development D
ofheritage corridor for TlZ area under directives ofSupreme Court--CBI
sub'tlitted report to the Court showing that crores of rupees were released
by the authorities ofState of UP. including the Minister for Environment
without proper sanction by the competent authority and construction work
carried on without obtaining techno-foasibility report and detailed project E
reports as also without clearance of Central Government-Approval
accorded by Chief Minister to the proposal-A subsequent report by CBI
showing tampering with record to cover up the commissions and omissions-
Directions given to Central Government and the State Government to hold
departmental inquiry against erring officials-Directions to CBI to lodge F
FIR against the persons involved in the matter and to make further
investigation-CBI to take appropriate steps to hold investigation against
the then Chief Minister of UP., former Minister ofEnvironment, UP. and
other Officers and to submit a selfcontained note to authorities mentioned
in the order-Public functionaries.
G
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Interlocutory Application No.
376 of 2003.
IN
Writ petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984. H
925
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Altaf Ahmed. Additional Solicitor General, Dipankar Gupta, Rakesh
Dwivedi, Dinesh Dwivedi, R.K. Jain, C.S. Vaidyanathan, M.C. Mehta in
Person, Krishan Mahajan, (A.C.), Sushi! Kumar Jain, Imtiaz Ahmed,
B Ms. Naghma lmtiaz, V.N. Raghupathy, Atish Dipankar, Santosh Kumar,
Chandra Kanta Nayak, Ajay Kr. Aggarwal in person, Kamlendra Mishra,
A. Mariarputham, P.Panneswaran, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Rajeev Sharma,
Pawan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Ashok
K. Srivastava, Vijay Panjwani, Pradeep Misra, Manoj K. Mishra,
Dr. Sumanat Bhardwaj and Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the appearing
c parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
On the basis of the decision rendered by this Court on 30.12.1996
D in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 title MC. Mehta (Taj Trapezium
Matter) v. Union of India & Ors., [1997} 2 SCC 353, various LAs. were
filed before this Court either for removal of the industries which are
polluting the atmosphere in the vicinity of Taj MahaJ or for removal of the
encroachment because appropriate steps were not taken by the concerned
E authorities. For this purpose, this Court had appointed a Monitoring
Committee to report to this Court for the action being taken by the Agra
Mission Management Board and other authorities. On 25.3.2003 on behalf
of the Monitoring Committee a report was submitted before this Court
wherein it was prayed that respondents including the State of U.P. be
direct~d to immediately stop the diversion of the river Yamuna and any
F further action on the bed of the river in proximity of the International
Heritage Monuments till the Union Ministry clears such projects upon an
environment impact assessment report. On the said application this Court
issued notice on 27.3.2003. At that time, learned counsel for the Monitor-
ing Committee as well as Mr. M.C. Mehta insisted that authorities are
G proceeding with the construction without appropriate clearance. Still,
however, we thought that as the State Government and the Central
Government are involved in the matter, they would proceed in accordance
with law. Therefore, stay order as prayed for was not granted. Subsequently,
on 8.4.2003 along with other matters this I.A. was also considered. On
H 9.4.2003 on the request of the learned counsel for the Union of India for
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE 927
studying the detailed project report and for filing necessary affidavit, A
matter was adjourned for three weeks. At the relevant time counsel for the
Union of India did not know whether officers of the U .P. Government were
proceeding with construction without clearance from the Central
Government.
B
Thereafter, on 1.5.2003, the Court perused the affidavit filed on
behalf of the Union Government and recorded as under :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the affidavit
dated 29.4.2003 of Dr. (Mrs.) Sunita v. Auluck, Add!. Director,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi (tendered in C
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). D
Component B : On left bank between Ram Bagh and opposite
Agra Fort and upstream of Rambagh.
Component C: On the right bank upstream of Agra Fort upto the
point opposite of Ram Bagh. E
Component D : On the left bank from the point opposite the
upstream of Agra Fort to near Mehtab Bagh and right bank down
stream of Taj.
F
For component A, learned counsel appearing for the State ·
Government states that at present no work or 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 G
submits that henceforth the State Government would not carry out
any further reclamation work except filing 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 the
stones and clay. However, this would be subject to further H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A directions and clearance by the Central Government under Section
3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Meantime, Central Water Research Station Khadakwasla would
assess the behaviour of the river and impact of reclamation of river
bed on the monuments in Agra and its protection thereof. The
B entire cost ofthis study would be borne by the Central Government."
We directed the Central Water Power research Station Khadakwasla
to assess the behaviour of the river and impact of reclamation on river bed
on the monuments in Agra and its protection thereof as we were under the
C impression that the project was earned out as per the direction of the
Central Government. Hence, we, directed the Central Government to bear
the costs of the Project. From the said affidavit it was apparent that the
construction work commenced without clearance and this Court was not
informed about it at the relevant time.
D Thereafter on 16.7.2003, this Court directed CBI inquiry in the
matter, wherein it was inter alia mentioned that for some ulterior motive
under the directions of some persons without getting necessary clearance
from the concerned authority, work of the project had continued and that
NPCC which the Government of India Undertaking has placed a board at
E the site stating : NPCC LTD., A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
ENTERPRISES, ENGAGED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HERITAGE
CORRIDOR FOR TTZ AREA AT AGRA UNDER THE DIRECTIVE OF
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, When this was pointed out to
the learned counsel for the NPCC, he submitted that there was some
F mistake committed because the work orders were issued by the Government.
At that time also we had not agreed with the said submission. It was also
mentioned that it was painful to note that instead of creating something new
which could be classified as a World Heritage or National Heritage,
concerned persons who were in power were inclined to damage or
G endanger the World Heritage by their hasty/irregular/illegal activities.
Therefore, CBI was directed to submit preliminary report within four
weeks. For this learned Addl. Solicitor General Mr. Altaf Ahmed stated
that report would be submitted at the earliest.
We here note down that the said statement made before the Court is
H fully complied with.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE 929
Thereafter on 25.7.2003, we directed the Committee to fmd out A
whether any damage is likely to be caused by the construction work carried
out by the government agency.
In the said inquiry report the CBI after recording the statements of
various persons including the persons involved stated that the conclusions B
drawn in the preliminary report are based on examination of documents
and examination of officers/persons which could be done during the
inquiry and that conclusions were provisional because some further inquiry
was necessary. Mainly, it was pointed out that opinion of Forensic Expert
was also required to be obtained as there was tampering of records and
interpolations. The conclusions are summarised below : C
1. The techno-feasibility report detailed project reports (DPRs),
detailed drawings and cost estimates were not prepared
before the physical commencement of work of Taj Heritage
Corridor Project at Agra. D
2. The techno-feasibility report and DPRs were not sent to the
Government oflndia for necessary approvals and clearances.
3. The meeting of the Mission Management Board held on
12.10.2002 does not appear to have taken a decision for E
immediate commencement of work. It had only decided for
preparation of techno-feasibility report and DPRs Only. The
actual commencement of work would have logically followed
preparation of techno-feasibility report and DPRs. And
detailed drawings and cost estimates and their necessary F
approval.
4. On the basis of the above, a note in file of the Environment
Department, U.P. was put up before the Chief Secretary,
U.P. stating that the Mission Management Board had decided
to get DPRs. and techno-feasibility reports prepared for G
which it was also decided in the meeting to release required
funds. It was further recorded in the said note itself that the
proceedings of the said meeting was prepared accordingly
and placed in the file for approval. But ~ proc~edings of
the meeting recorded a different decision so much so that the H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A words 'tatkal karya prarambha karne' (immediate
commencement of work) had been added in the proceedings
apparently with ulterior motives. Initials of the Chief
Secretary, UP were also obtained on each page of the
minutes of the meeting.
B 5. The file was, therefore, sent to the office of the Chief
Minister, UP Ms. Maya Wati through Shri Naseemuddin
Siddiqui, attached Minister, stating that the Chief Secretary,
UP had approved the decision of the Mission Management
Board for immediate commencement of the work, preparation
c of techno-feasibility report and DPRs. The said note was not
routed through Shri D.S. Bagga, Chief Secretary, UP. It was
proposed in the note that approval be accorded for taking
action as per the approval of the Chief Secretary and also
for informing the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
D Government oflndia and the Hon'ble Supreme Court through
quarterly reports. The said proposal for starting work in
terms of the purported approval of the Chief Secretary was
accorded approval by the Chief Minister which was
communicated by Shri P.L. Punia, Principal secretary to the
E Chief Minister, UP vide his note recorded in the file. This
shows that the office of the Chief Minister was apprised of
the impending construction at the site as the approval of the
Chief Minister was communicated as stated above.
6. No tender enquiry was floated for preparation of techno- '
F feasibility report, detailed project report (DPR) and for
awarding the work for execution.
7. No work order was issued to NOPCC for executing the work t1
specifying the material and technical specifications and
G quantities of different works.
8. Work was started by NPCC on the verbal instructions ofShri
R.K. Sharma, Secretary, Environment, UP for which no
Memorandum of Understanding or Agreement was signed
H between the State Government and NPCC. Only a copy of
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE 931
the Government Order dated 01 I 11/2002 sanctioning Rs. 17 A
crores for this project was sent to NPCC.
9. The entire work of the project was left at the mercy ofNPCC
and its subcontractor M/s. lshvakoo (India) Pvt. Limited and
no Government Department or authority or agency was B
made responsible to supervise the ongoing work,. to check
the material and technical specifications and to take meas-
urement of the work executed by NPCC or its subcontractor.
10. NPCC entered in a pre-tender tie up with M/s. Ishvakoo
(India) Pvt. Limited for execution of this project without
c
exploring possibility of entering into such arrangement with
other parties on competitive terms.
11. No approval of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs
(CCEA) was obtained before commencement of work of the D
project, contrary to the decisions taken jointly by the gov-
emment of India and the Government of UP which was
reiterated on more than one occasions in the files of the
Environment Department.
E
12. An amount of Rs. 17 crores was unauthorisedly released by
Shri R.K. Sharma, Secretary, Environment, UP for com-
mencement of the work and preparation of DPR and techno-
feasibility report. No approval was obtained from the depart-
mental Minister for release of the said amount. The govern- F
ment Order was issued in the name of the Government
without obtaining the approval of the departmental Minister
or the Chief Minister by sending a specific proposal.
13. Contrary to the provisions existing in the State Government G
which requires that in case of every non-recurring expendi-
ture of Rs. 5 crores and above, approval of the Expenditure
Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government is
required, no such approval was either sought or obtained
before sanctioning the amount of Rs:~·"l7 crores.
H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A 14. An amount of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by Shri
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, presently Minister of Environment,
UP for release without approval of DPRs and techno-
feasibility report and without consideration of the matter by
the Expenditure Finance Committee (EEC) of the State
B Government and CCEA, Government of India.
15. Shri Siddiqui appears to have subsequently tampered with
the file and to have made interpolations in the Government
records with an objective to cover up the fact that he had
sanctioned Rs. 20 crores on 21.5.2002.
c
16. Shri Siddiqui and Dr. V.K. Gupta, the present Secretary,
Environment, U.P. are reported to have pressurised Shri
Rajendra Prasad, Under Secretary, Environment Department,
U.P. to tamper with the file and to make interpolations in the
D official records so that his subsequent note in the file
matched and was in line with the interpolations made in the
note of the Minister.
17. Shri K.C. Mishra, Secretary, Environment and Forest,
Government of India appears to have tampered with the file
E and made interpolations in government records in order to
cover up his omissions of not approving the proposals of his
Joint Secretary and Special Secretary for writing to the State
Government for a report and to ask them to carry out work
only after necessary approvals and clearances.
F
Thereafter as requested by the CBI further time was given by order
dated 21.8.2003. In that order we had specifically directed the CBI Officer
to interrogate the persons involved and also to verify their assets because
it was alleged that an amount of Rs. 17 crores was released without proper
G sanction.
Thereafter a report was submitted on 11.9.2003 with following
further conclusions-
15. An amount of Rs. 17 crores was unauthorisedly released by
H Shri R.K. Sharma, Secretary, Environment, U.P. without the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITTEE 933
approval of the departmental Minister. (Ref. Para 3.l.E.4 A
page 64 and para 3.l.E.31, page 81)
16. Contrary to the provisions existing in the State Government
· which require that in case of every non-recurring expenditure
of Rs. 5 crores and above, approval of the Expenditure B
Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government is
required, no such approval was either sought or obtained
before, sanctioning the amount of Rs. 17 crores (Ref. Para
3.l.E.l1, page 67).
17. An amount of Rs. 20 crores was sanctioned by Shri C
Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister of Environment,
U.P. for release without approval of DPRs and techno-
feasibility reports and without clearance of the Expenditure
Finance Committee (EFC) of the State Government and
CCEA, Government oflndia (Ref. Para 3.l.E. 39 page 86). D
18. Shri Siddiqui subsequently tampered with the file and made
interpolations in the Government records with an objective
to cover up the fact that he had sanctioned Rs. 20 crores on
21105/2003. (Ref. Para 3.l.E.40 ( 1 and 2) page 87).
E
19. Shri Siddiqui and Dr. V.K. Gupta, the present Secretary,
Environment, U.P. pressurized Shri Rajendra Prasad, Under
Secretary, Environment Department, U. P. who also tampered
with the file and made interpolations to cover the fact that
the Minister had sanctioned Rs. 20 crores. (Ref. Para 3.l.E. F
37, page 86).
20. Shri K.C. Mishra, Secretary, Environment and Forest
Government of India tampered with the file and made
interpolations in Government records in order to cover up
his omissions of not approving the proposals of his Joint G
Secretary and Special Secretary for writing to the State
Government for a report and to ask them to carry out work
only after necessary approvals and clearances. He obscured
some portions of the notes dated 21110/2002 and 08/05/2003
of Dr. Saroj, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A and Forest so as to show that he was not a part of the decision
making and had not shown his consent to the proposed
project. (Ref. Para 3.I. E. 42 page 89).
21. Central Forensic Science Laboratory has given a report that
interpolations we:-e made in the files by Shri Naseemuddin
B Siddiqui, the then Minister, U.P., Shri Rajendra Prasad,
Under Secretary, U.P. and Shri K.C. Misra, Secretary,
Environment and Forests, Government of India (Ref. Para
3.l.G.21, pages 106-107 and 3.1.£.44 (5-6}, page 90).
c 22. Collection of information/intelligence and discreet
verification of assets acquired/held by the persons/officers
involved with decision-making process in the case could not
be completed. Considering the enormity of task, it is likely
to take considerable time. (Ref. Para 3.l.K.l, page 112-
113)".
D
On the basis of the said report further time was given to the CBI for
verification of the assets of the persons/officers involved and the same
report inter alia reveals as under
E "In addition to the above, enquiry was also made regarding
the outflow of Rs. 17 crores, released by the State Government
to M/s. NPCC for this project, major part of which was paid by
M/s. NPCC to M/s. lshvakoo (India) Private Limited and M/s.
Consultant Architect and Planner Services Limited (CAPS).
F Income Tax Returns of the following persons/officers were collected
from different income tax authorities:
(i) Ms. Mayawati, fonner Chief Minister, Uttar Pradesh.
G (ii) Shri Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister, Uttar Pradesh.
(iii) Shri K.C. Misra, the then Secretary, Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi.
(iv) Shri D.S. Bagga, the then Chief Secretary, Government of
H Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.I. ON BEHALF OF MONITORING COMMITIEE 935
(v) Shri P.L. Punia, the then Principal Secretary to the Chief A
Minister, Uttar Pradesh.
(vi) Shri R.K. Shanna, the then Principal Secretary, Environment,
Government of Uttar Pradesh."
B
Apart from what has been stated in the reports with regard to the
assets, the learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Altaf Ahmed, submitted
that further inquiry/investigation is necessary by the CBI.
Considering the aforesaid report and the serious irregularities/illegalities C
committed in carrying out the so-called Taj Heritage Corridor Project, we
direct :-
(a) the Central Government to hold immediate departmental
inquiry against Shri K.C. Mishra, former Secretary,
Environment, Union of India; D
(b) the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold departmental inquiry
against Shri R.K. Sharma, former Principal Environment
Secretary, Shri P.L. Punia, former Principal Secretary to
Chief Minister, Shri D.S. Bagga, Chief Secretary, Shri V.K. E
Gupta, former Secretary - Environment; and
(c) NPCC or the competent authority including the Central
Government to hold inquiry against Shri S.C. Bali, Managing
Director of NPCC;
F
(d) the State Government as well as the concerned officers of
the Central Government are directed to see that departmental
inquiry is completed within four months from today. The
State U.P. and Central Government would appoint respective
inquiry officers for holding inquiry, within a period of seven G
days from today;
(e) It would be open to the State Government if called for to
pass order for suspension of delinquent officers in accordance
with the rules, H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A (f) For the officers and the persons involved in the matter, CBI
is directed to lodge FIR and make further investigation in
accordance with Jaw;
(g) CBI shall take appropriate steps for holding investigation
against Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati and Naseemuddin
B Siddiqui, fonner Minister for Environment, U.P. and other
officers involved;
(h) Income Tax department is also directed to cooperate in
further investigation which is required to be carried out by
c the CBI.
(i) CBI would take into consideration all the relevant Acts i.e.
fPC/Prevention of Corruption Act and the Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc.
D (j) CBI to submit self contained note to the Chief Secretary to
the Government of Uttar Pradesh as well as to the Cabinet
Secretary, Union Government and to the concerned Ministry
dealing with the NPCC.
E Stand over for four months for report and compliance.
R.P. Matters are pending.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental protection"Sign in to search