Holding

The consent granted on 21 April 1993 was in clear contravention of the Supreme Court's order, making the Chairman and Member‑Secretary guilty of contempt, though their unconditional apologies were accepted with a severe warning.

Summary

The petitioner highlighted severe pollution of the Gomti River caused by several industries, including Mohan Meakins Breweries, and the Supreme Court ordered on 15 January 1993 that these units must rectify deficiencies in their effluent treatment plants by 21 March 1993 or cease operations. Mohan Meakins failed to comply, was denied consent by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and shut down on 1 April 1993. Despite the Court's order, the UPPCB granted consent to the company on 21 April 1993, relying on a State Government order dated 20 April 1993 and the 1992 amendment to the Environment Rules, and inserted the clause that the consent was "subject to the orders of this Court". The Chairman (Sri Pradeep Kumar) and Member‑Secretary (Sri Darshan Singh) of the UPPCB were shown contempt notices, filed affidavits offering unconditional apologies, and argued that the consent was justified under Section 27(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The Court held that the consent was a clear violation of its 15 January 1993 order, that the officers were guilty of contempt, but accepted their unconditional apologies with a severe warning. The contempt petition was disposed of, and a note of the warning was ordered to be entered in the officers' service records.

Issues considered

The consent granted to Mohan Meakins on 21 April 1993 contravened the Supreme Court's order dated 15 January 1993.
Whether the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board could rely on the 1992 amendment to the Environment Rules and Section 27(2) of the Water Act to justify the consent.
Whether an unconditional apology by the officers suffices to mitigate the contempt finding.
The legal effect of the clause "subject to the orders of this Court" inserted in the consent order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

environmental pollutionriver Gomtieffluent treatment plantcontempt of courtpollution control boardWater Act 1974environmental lawunconditional apologyjudicial warning

Judgment

A VINEET KUMAR MATHUR
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 8, 1995

B [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, .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
B
till 31.12.1993 to achieve the standard." In view of the said direction he had
to and did issue the "consenf1•

On July 20, 1994, Special Secretary, Environment, U.P. stated that
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

HELD : 1. P was the Chairman and D was a Member-Secretary of
the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board at the relevant time. That
order dated January 15, 1993 had expressly directed that the reasonable
time to be given to the various industries for re1noval of deficiencies in
B their effiuent treatment plants shall not be beyond March 21, 1993. All
those industries which did not remove the deficiencies within the said date
and did not obtain the consent of P.C.B. by March 31, 1993 were to close
down. Mohan Meakins were indeed refused consent by P.C.B. on March
31, 1993 and it was closed on and with effect from April 1, 1993. Yet a
c consent was granted on April 21, 1993 by the Pollution Control Boaru
whereunder it has been allowed to operate its plant and factory with the
condition that it should remove the deficiencies on or before December 31,
1993. (817-H, 818-A-B)

2. It may be noticed that the amendment of' Environment Rules
D effected by the Central Government by Notification dated February 12,
1992 was long prior to this Court's order dated January 15, 1993. Though
the said amendment provided for granting time for removal of deficiencies
till December 31, 1993 in case of indnstries established before May 16,
1981, this Court had yet ordered that it should be done on or before March
E 21, 1993. In such situation, it was not open to the Pollution Control Board
to grant consent on April 21, 1995 asking Mohan Meakins to remove the
deficiencies by December 31, 1993. It must be remembered that both the
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Mohan Meakins were parties
to the order dated January 15, 1993. (818-C-D]

F 3. So far as the addition of' the words, "this consent order is subject to
the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court oflndia in W.P. 327 ofl990
VineetKumarMuthurv. Union of India, "are concerned, it was a clever ploy by
4 .
the person(s) issuing the consent. Firstly, the order of this Court dated
January 15, 1993 precluded grant of any consent subsequent to March 31,
G 1993. Secondly, there was no point in saying that the said consent was "sub-
ject to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court" when the consent
being granted was itself in plain contravention of the order of this Court. It
really the Pollution Control Board meant what it now says, the least and
probably the only course open to it - it could have done was to apply to this
Court for permission to issue a 'consent' for the reasons stated by it. It did
H nothing of the sort. It went ahead and issued a consent with the said mislead-
V.K. MAIBUR v. U.0.1. 809

ing words allowing the industry to operate contrary to the orders of this A
Court. Th_e consent letter does not say that Mohan Meakins will be entitled
to act upon the said consent only after obtaining the orders of this Court
therefor. In the absence of any such stipulation, the addition on the said
words in the consent order had no meaning and were evidently meant to be
used as a cover in future if and \Vhen someone con1plained of violation of the
order of this Court. [818-E-H, 819-A-B] B

4. I' has flied two aflidavits. In the earlier aflidavit, an attempt was
made to show that there was no violation in view of the facts stated therein,
by the second aflidavit, he has accepted that there was a lapse on his part.
Of course even in this second aflidavit, he has tried to explain that his C
orders were passed upon the note put up by the Member - Secretary, the
legal opinion tendered by the Law Secretary and the decision taken by his
superior including the Advisor to H.E., the Governor. At the time of argu-
ments, P, made no attempt to justify his conduct. He plainly admitted that
what has been done was in clear violation of the orders of this Court dated
January 15, 1993. [819-D-E] D

5.1. D has filed only one aflidavit. While tendering an unconditional
and unqualified apology, D has stated that in view of the amendment of
Environment Rules on February 12, 1992, and the power of review inhering
in the Pollution Control Board by virtue of section 27(2) of the Water Act, E
1974 he put up a note for grant of consent on the basis of the application
made by Mohan Meakins on April 2, 1993. [819-H]

5.2. The note·put up by D to P does refer to the order of this Court
dated January 15, 1993 and to the refusal of consent by P.C.B. to Mohan
Meakins on March 31, 1993, yet it says that in view of the instruction
F
issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government on April 20, 1993, the order dated
March 31, 1993 refusing consent is liable to be reviewed under Section 27
of the Water Act, 1974. It singularly fails to point out that the refusal of
consent on March 31, 1993 was pursuant to and in terms of the Court's
order dated January 15, 1993 and cannot, therefore, be reviewed without G
reference to this Court. It is equally significant to notice that P too does
not refer to this aspect in his endorsement. It looks as if for both of them,
the orders of the Uttar Pradesh Government issued on April 20, 1~93 were
sacrosant and superseded the orders of this Court as well. It is a matter
of regret that even responsible and senior Officers of the Government have H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A acted in this manner. [823-A-C]

6. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances aforesaid,
P and D are both guilty of violation of this Court's order dated January 15,
1993. In view of the explanation put forward by them and the several cir-
cumstances stated by them, their unconditional apology is accepted. At the
B same time, a severe warning is administered to both the ollicers that repeti-
tion of any such violation shall be viewed seriously. A copy of this order shall
form part of the service record of both the ollicers. [823-G-H]

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 327 of ,..
1990.
c
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Kapil Sibal, D.A. Dave,
M.C. Bhandare A.B. Rohtagi, V.C. Mahajan, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Niti Dikshi,
D Pradip Mishra, K.K. Mohan, Ashok K. Srivastava, Shri Narain, Sandeep
Narain, Yashwant Mathur, Ms. N. Singh, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Arnn K. /
Sharma, Sushil K. Jain, Shakeel Ahmad, Ms. Safia Khan, Vinay Garg, A:
Minocha, Shakil Ahmed Syed, S.K. Mishra, R.B. Mishra, Raju
Ramachandran, A.K. Sil, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, R.P. Singh, Kailash Vasdev
(NP) for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. A letter written by Sri Vineet Kumar
Mathur 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
F to time. Mohan Meakins Breweries is said to be one of. the industries
polluting the river. It is not necessary to refer to the various orders passed
in this matter from time to time. It would be sufficient to refer to the order
made on January 15, 1993 which reads as under :

"The following order will apply to : (1) Mis. Mohan Meakins,
G Daliganj, Lucknow; (2) Mis. Oudh Sugar Mill, Hargaon, Sitapur;
(3) Mis. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Gola Gorakhnath, Kheri (Sugar
Unit-Distillery); (4) Mis. Sharda Sugar Mill, Palia Lakhimpur
Kheri (New Name - Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Unit Palia Lakhimpur
Kheri); (5) Mis. Balaji Vegetable Product, Sitapur; (6) M/s. Kissan
H Cooperative Sugar Mill, Majhola, Pilibhit; (7) Mis. U.P. State
V.K.MATHURv. U.0.1.[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 811

Sugar Corpn., Mohali, Sitapur; (8) M/s. HAL Lucknow; (9) M/s. A
Lucknow Producers Milk Union, Lucknow Industries.

"The officers of the State Pollution Board will visit the
above industries establishments and make a fresh inspection
of the effluent treatment plants installed in the said estab-
lishments and of their working. If there are any applications B
made by these industries for consent of the Board, they will
be disposed of after inspection and within three weeks from
today. If after inspection, it is found that the treatment plants
are deficient in any respect or the deficienc-y pointed out
earlier still continues, the Board will give reasonable time for c
the industries to cure the deficiencies. However, the time so
given-should not extend beyond 21st March, 1993.

The officers of the Pollution Board will visit the in-
dustrial establishments concerned after the expiry of the time
given to them to cure the deficiencies, and, make their report D
to this Court before "th April, 1993.

If the industries in question do not obtain the consent of
the State Polution Board for running their units, before 31st
March, 1993, the industries will stop functioning after 31st E
March, 1993.

As regards the Municipal Boards of Pilibhit, Barabanki,
Sitapur, Sultanpur, J aunpur, Lakhimpur Kheri, they are
directed to instal the effluent treatment plant on or before
30th April, 1993 and obtain a certificate from the State F
Pollution Board that the plant installed is upto the standard
and its working is satisfactory. The Chief Officers and the
Presiding Officers of the concerned Municipalities are re-
quired to file their affidavits on or before 30th April, 1993
that they have complied with the above directions.
G
Mr. R.B. Misra Appears for the State Government. The
State Government is directed to let the Court know what
steps they have taken to release the funds to the Jal Nigam
for installation of the sewerage treatment plant at Lucknow.
The affidavit to be filed on or be before 30th April, 1993. H
812 sur .-EME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A As regards the industries, the matter shall come up for
hearing on 7th April, 1993. As regards the municipalities, it
would come up for hearing on 3rd May, 1993".

Inasmuch as Mohan Meakins did not remove the deficiencies in its
cflluent treatment plant by 21st March, 1993, no consent was granted to it
B by the Pollution Control Board. It stopped fuctioning from !st April, 1993
onwards. The letter dated March 31, 1993 Addressed to Mohan Meakins
by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (al Pages 422-425 of the
record) states that in the circumstances stated therein, consent cannot be
granted to Mohan Meakins under the Water (Control of Pollution) Act,
c 1974 (for short, the "Water Act").

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 order
of this Court and, therefore, the consent may now be granted to them under
D the Water Act: Before we refer to the orders passed on this application,
we may refer lo some other developments which have taken place in the
meanwhile.

On April 6, 1993, the P.C.B. filed an affidavit in this Court stating,
inter alia, that the consent has been refused to Mohan Meakins for failing
E to remove the deficiencies in effluent treatment plant.

On 6th and 7th April, 1993, Mohan Meakins filed two affidavits in
this Court. In the first affidavit, Mohan Meakins stated that the sudden
shut down of the plant is likely to result in not only emission of poisonous
F gases but is also likely to damage the machinery and the plant beyond
repair on account of the solidification of the spentwash and that with a
view to avoid the said untoward consequences, it is felt necessary to run
the plant intermittently for a period not exceeding two days in all between
7th and 11th of April, 1993. By such running, it was submitted, the company
does not mean to nor should it be understood to have violated the order
G of this Court dated January 15, 1993. In the other affidavit filed by Mohan
Meakins, it stated that inasmuch as they have since rectified the deficien-
cies in the effluent treatment plant and have brought it upto the desired
level, the order dated January 15, 1993 may be extended till December 31,
1993, which is the date specified in the Government of India Notification
H dated February 12, 1992.
V.K. MATHUR v. U.0.1. fB.P . .IEEVAN REDDY.J.J 813

On April 15, 1993, this Court passed an order (at Page 520 of the A
record) holding that running of the plant between 7th and 11th of April,
1993 by Mohan Meakins JJ1ima facie amounts to violation of this Court's
order dated .I anuary 15, 1993. Accordingly, notices were issued to the
Managing Director of Mohan Meakins, Brig. Kapil Mohan and lo the Chief
Executive Officer, Sri Yogcsh Kumar, lo show cause why they should not
B
be proceeded against for contempt of this Court.

Now, coming back to the application made by the P.C.B. on April 2,
1993 to grant consent, the P.C.B. granted the consent on April 21, 1993.
This fact was, however, not brought to the notice of this Court immediately
either by P.C.B. or by Mohan Meakins. Though an affidavit was filed by C
Sri Yogesh Kumar on April 27, 1993 in response to the contempt notice
issued to him on April 15, 1993, this fact was not disclosed. Similarly, the
Managing Director, Brig. Kapil Mohan also did not disclose this fact in his
affidavit filed in reply to the contempt notice. On May 3, 1993, the P.C.B.
also filed an affidavit stating that working of the factory for two days by D
Mohan Meakins is not justified but even here the P.C.B. did not clisc'lose
the fact that the consent has since been granted to Mohan Meakins on
April 21, 1993. It, however, appears that during the course of arguments,
this fact was brought to the notice of this Court. Thereupon, Sri P.H.
Parekh, Advocate, who was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae in
this matter addressed a letter, on May 8, 1993, to the learned Advocate for E
Mohan Meakins to confirm whether the plant/factory of Mohan Meakins
has started working since April 23, 1993 and if so, on what basis. Sri Parekh
sent a reminder on May 14, 1993. There was no reply from Mohan Meakins
to either of these letters.
F
On October 8, 1993, this Court passed the following order in view of
the failure of Mohan Mcakins to respond to the letter from Sri Parekh :

11
lnspite of the letlcr written by the learned counsel for petitioner
on May 8, 1993 requesting the learned advocate for the 2nd
respondent to send him ~opies of all the applications for consent,
G
appeals together with the annexures and copies of the orders,
passed either by the U.P. Pollution Control Board or by the
Appellate Authorities under which the respondent Industry has
been working since 23rd April, 1993, no documents have been
supplied to him till date. Mr. Bhandare, learned counsel for the H

•
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 2nd respondent states that they were under the impression that
the petitioner must be in possession of the said documents. The
reply is most unsatisfactory and distressing as well. We adjourn
the matter to 5th November, 1993. The 2nd respondent to supply
the documents in question on affidavit. The respondent No. 2 lo
pay the cost of adjournment which is fixed at Rs. 10,000 as a
B
condition precedent. The matter will be before this Bench as
part-heard."

In compliance with the above order, an affidavit was filed on October r .
24, 1993 on behalf of Mohan Meakins (at page 595 of the record) disclosing
C that on the basis of their letter dated April 2, 1993, the P.C.B. has granted
consent on April 21, 1993 and that while granting the said consent the
P.C.B. was fully aware of the order of this Court dated April 15, 1993
(issuing contempt notices to the Managing Director and Chief Executive
. Officer of Mohan Meakins). It was disclosed further that on the basis of
D the said consent their plant had started functioning with effect from April
23, 1993.

In the light of the facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of
Mohan Meakins, this Court issued a notice to Sri Darshan Singh, Mem-
ber-Secretary, Ultar Pradesh Pollution Control Board to show cause why
E he should not be punished for contempt of this Court for granting consent
in violation of the orders or'this Court dated January 15, 1993. Counsel
for the State of Uttar Pradesh was also directed to produce the entire
Government record relating to the said matter alongwith an affidavit
detailing the circumstances in which the Government had issued the order
F dated April 20, 1993 (referred to in the 'consent' order) to Sri Darshan
Singh. On May 13, 1994, Sri Darshan Singh filed an affidavit in response
to the contempt notice issued to him. In his affidavit, he referred to (1)
Government of India Notification dated February 12, 1992 adding sub-rules
(6) and (7) in Rule 3 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and to
sub-rule (6) in particular; (2) to Section 18 of the Water Act which
G empowered the Central Government to give directions to the P.C.B.; (3)
lo the order of this Court dated January 15, 1993 and (4) to the closure of
Mohan Meakins on and with effect from April, 1, 1993 in compliance with
this Court's order dated January 15, 1993 and then stated that he had put
up a note to the Chairman for granting consent to Mohan Meakins in view
H of the Uttar Pradesh Government order dated April 20, 1993, mentioning
V.K. MKfHUR v. U.O.l. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.] 815

at the same time that the consent so granted shall be subject to the orders A
of this Court. He stated that "the Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control
Board/Secretary (Environment), Government of U.P. directed the
deponent not to raise any objections in granting consent to M/s. Mohan
Meakins in view of G.O. dated 20.4.1993 since this unit has been estab-
lished before 16.5.1991 and requested time till 31.12.1993 to achieve the
B
standard". He submitted that in view of the said direction, he had to and
did issue the 'consent'. He also referred to Section 27(2) of the Water Act
w!iich empowered the Board to review its order ref using consent.

On July 20, 1994, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State
Government (sworn-to by Sri S.N. Shukla, Spe.cial Secretary, Environment) c
affirming the direction given by the Uttar Pradesh Government to the
Pollution Control Board but stating at the same time that they were general
instructions and were not meant for a particular industry. It was further
stated in this affidavit 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 D
order.

Jn view of the affidavit ot Sri Darshan Singh and the affidavit of the
-~. Government of Uttar Pradesh aforesaid, this Court directed, on May 4,
1995, notice to Sri Pradeep Kumar, the then Chairman of the Uttar
Pradesh Pollution Control Board-cum-Secretary (Environment) to show E
cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of this Court. Sri
Pradeep Kumar filed an affidavit in response to the said notice stating that
inasmuch as Mohan Meakins was a unit established before May 16, 1991
and had installed effluent treatment plant and also because the B.O.D.
level, was only marginally higher than the prescribed norms, "it was con- F
sidered appropriate to review the matter in the light of the provisions of
Section 27(2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974", Particularly in view of the orders issued by the Government of Uttar
Pradesh on April 20, 1993. Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of his affidavit are
relevant and may be extracted :
G
"11. Thal in aforesaid circumstances the Member- Secretary of the
Board had moved a proposal for reviewing the orders of the Board
regarding refusal of the consent on 21.4.1993. It has been suggested
by Member-Secretary that consent may be given to the industry
subject to the condition that the unit will treat the efilucnts lo the H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A extent possible in ETP and also subject to the orders of the Hon'b!e
Supreme Court in W.P. No. 327/90 Vineet Kumar Mathur Yers·"s
Union of India & Ors.
.,.
12. That the proposal of the Member-Secretary was approved hy
the deponent and it was directed not to raise any objections as per
B the provisions of the G.O. dated 20.4.93. But such approval of the
deponent for reviewing consent does not mean that M/s. Mohan
Meakins was allowed to operate its industrial plant after 31.3.93
in defiance of the order dated 15.1.1993 passed by this Hon'ble r
Court.
c
13. That in the consent letter, it has been made clear that the same
is issued subject to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. True
English translation of letter dated 21.4.1993 issued to M/s. Mohan
Meakins is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure IV lo
this affidavit."
D
Since this Court was not satisfied with the explanation so offered, a notice
was issued on August 25, 1995 calling upon Sri Pradeep Kumar to answer
the charge of contempt in response to which Sri Pradeep Kumar filed an . .-
alfalavit on October 12, 1995. In this affidavit, he tendered his uncondi-
E tional apology for violating the orders of this Court and prayed that in the
circumstances staled therein his unconditional apology may be accepted.
In this affidavit, he stated that after the closure of several industries on or
with effect from April, 1, 1993, they made a representation to the Govern-
ment of Uttar Pradesh referring, inter a/ia, to the Government of India
F Notification dated February 12, 1992 (referred to supra) whereupon he
consulted the Law Department of Uttar Pradesh and on the basis of its
legal opinion and after considering the matter al the highest level in the
Government (including the Advisor to H.E. the Governor) he put up a
proposal to i>Sue appropriate orders to P.C.B. that the industry established
before May 16, 1981 may not be refused consent and that such industries
G may be given time till December 31, 1993 for achieving the prescribed level
of c!Ticicncy in their effluent treatment plants. Accordingly, the Govern·
ment issued orders on April 20, 1993 following which Shri Darshan Singh,
Member-Secretary, Ullar Pradesh Pollution Conlrnl Board put up a
proposal for granting consent, which he approved stating that no objection
1-1 be rai.scd for granting consent to Mohan Meakins. In his nolc, he made it
V.K. MATHUR v. U.0.1. JB.P . .IEEVAN REDDY, J.J 817

clear that any such consent shall be subject to the orders of this Court. Shri A
PraJeep Kumar ac.hnittcd that it \Vas a lapse on his part, as a Chairn1an of
the Pollution Control Board, in not ensuring that this Court is informed of
the said consent in1mcdiately and in not obtaining appropriate orders in
that behalf. He further stated that he is a senior member of the l.A.S.
cadre, that in his entire career he has never violated the orders of the Court
and that in the circumstances, stated in the affidavit, he may be pardoned.
B
He assured that he would never give any occasion for similar complaint.

When the matter came up on October 14, 1995, we heard the matter
fully insofar as Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Darshan Singh are concerned.
Insofar as the contempt notice related to Mohan Meakins is concerne.d, it C
transpired during the course of hearing that the notice issued to the
Managing Director and the Chief Executive Officer pertained only to their
running the factory/plant on two days between 7th and 11th of April, 1993
and not to their obtaining consent on April 21, 1993 and running their plant
contrary to the orders of this Court. Accordingly, we issued a fresh notice
to the officers of the Mohan Meakins to show cause why they should not D
be punished for violating the orders of this Court dated January 15, 1993
by obtaining consent from the P.C.B. on April 21, 1993 in violation of the
orders of this Court. Notice was made returnable within four weeks, during
which time the said contemnors were entitled to file a counter to the said
notice. For this reason, we are delinking the contempt notice insofar as it
E
pertains to Mohan Meakins which will be dealt with and disposed of later,
though we have concluded the arguments with respect to the notice already
issued to them. We think it appropriate that orders are passed with respect
to Mohan Meakins after hearing them in response to the fresh notice issued
on October 13, l 995. These orders are, therefore, confined to Sri Pradeep
Kun1ar and Sri .Darshan Singh only. F

Sri Pradeep Kumar was the Chairman and Sri Darshan Singh was
• the Member-Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board at the
relevant time.

G
We are of the opinion that the consent granted by Pollution Control
Board to Mohan Meakins on April 21, 1993 is clearly in contravention of
this Court's order dated .January 15, 1993. The order of this Court had
expressly directed that the reasonable time to be given to the various
industries for removal of deficiencies in their effluent treatment plants shall
not be beyond March 21, 1993. The inspection by the P.C.B., the removal H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995j SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of deficiencies et al were all to be completed by March 21, 1993. All those
industries which did not remove the deficienies within the said date and
did not obtain the consent of P.C.B. by March 31, 1993 were to close down.
Mohan Mcakins were indeed refused consent by P.C.B. on March 31, 190:;
and it was close on and with effect from April, 1, 1993. Yet a consent was
granted on April 21, 1993 by the Pollution Control Board whereunder it
B has been allowed to operate its plant and factory with the condition that it
shou'd remove the deficiencies on or before December 31, 1993. It may be
noticed that the amendment of Environment Rules effected by the Central
Government by Notification dated February 12, 1992 was long prior to this
Court's order dated January 15, 1993. Though the said amendment
provided for granting time for removal of deficiencies till December 31,
c 1993 in case of industries established before May 16, 1981, this Court had
yet ordered that it should be done on or before March 21, 1993. In such a
situation, it was not open lo the Pollution Control Board to grant consent
on April 21, 1993 asking Mohan Meakins to remove the deficiencies by
December 31, 1993. It must be remembered that both the Uttar Pradesh
D Pollution Control Board and Mohan Meakins were parties to the order
dated January 15, 1993. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion that the
said grant of consent to Mohan Meakins was in clear contravention of the
order dated January 15, 1993.

So far as the addition of the words, "this consent order is subject to
E the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. 327 of
1990 Vineet Kumar Mathur v. Union of India" are concerned, we think that
it was a clever ploy by the pcrson(s) issuing the consent. Firstly, the order
of this Court dated January 15, 1993 precluded grant of any consent
subsequent lo March 31, 1993. Secondly, there was no point in saying that
the said consent was "subject lo the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
F
Court" when the consent being granted was itself in plain contravention of
the order of this Court. It really the Pollution Control Board meant what
it now says, the least - and probably the only course open to it - it could
have done was to apply to this Court for permission to issue a 'consent' for
the reasons stated by it. It did nothing of the sort. It went ahead and issued
G a consent with the said misleading words allowing the industry to operate
contrary to tl)e orders of this Court. Yet another fact to be noticed in this
behalf is the variance between the ground stated in Mohan Meakins
application (for consent) dated April 2, 1993 and the terms subject to
which it was granted consent by P.C.B. In their application dated April 2,
H
V.K. MATHUR v. U.0.1. [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.) 819

1993, it may be recalled, Mohan Meakins stated· that inasmuch as they have A
complied with the prescribed norms they should be granted consent
whereas the consent actually granted contemplates Mohan Meakins achiev-
ing the prescribed norms by December 31, 1993. The consent letter does
not also say that Mohan Meakins will be entitled to act upon the said
consent only after obtaining the orders of this Court therefor. In the
B
absence of any such stipulation, the addition of the said words in the
consent order had no meaning and were evidently meant to be used as a
co.ver in future if and when someone complained of violation of the order
of this Court. In this view of the matter, both the Member-Secretary, Sri
Darshan Singh and the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board, Sri
Pradeep Kumar must be held to be guilty of violation of the order of this c
Court dated January 15, 1993. Question then arises, whether the uncondi-
tional apology tendered by them should be accepted, or not?

Sri Pradeep Kumar has filed two affidavits to which reference has
already been made. In the earlier affidavit, an attempt was made to show D
that there was no violation in view of the facts stated therein by the second
affidavit, he has accepted that there was a lapse on his part. Of course,
even in this second affidavit, he has tried to explain that his orders were
passed upon the note put up by Sri Darshan Singh, Member-Secretary, the
legal opinion tendered by the Law Secretary and the decision taken by his
superiors including the Advisor to H.E. the Governor. At the time of
E
arguments, however, Sri Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for Sri Pradcep
Kumar, made no attempt to justify his conduct. Sri Sibal plainly admitted
that what has been done was in clear violation of the orders of this Court
dated January 15, 1993. Sri Sibal submitted that in view of the unblemished
record of the officer and in view of the circumstances stated in his second F
affidavit and his assurance that he will never allow any such situation to
arise in future, the unconditional apology tendered by him may be ac-
cepted. Counsel submitted that Sri Pradeep Kumar is truly repenting his
lapse and the unconditional apology by him is born of genuine contriteness.
G
Sri Darshan Singh has filed only one affidavit. While tendering an
unconditional and unqualified apology, Sri Darshan Singh has stated that
in view of the amendment of Environment Rules on February 12, 1992, and
the power of review inhering in the Pollution Control Board by virtue of
Section 27(2) of the Water Act, he put up a note for grant of consent on H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the basis of the application made by Mohan Mcakins on April 2, 1993. The
rckvant paras in his affidavit are Paras 13 to 17 which read thus :

"13. That the deponent on 21.4.92 keeping in view the orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court, G.O. dt. 20.4.93 and provisions of
the Act and Rules submitted a proposal for grant of consent to
B
Mis. Mohan Meakins before the Chairman of the Board wherein
it was specifically mentioned that this consent will be subject to
orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in this ease.

14. That the Chairman, U.P. Pollution Control Board/Secretary,
c Environment, Government of U.P. directed the deponent not to
raise any objection in grating consent to M/s. Mohan Meakins
in view of G.O. dt. 20.4.93 since this unit has been established
before 16.5.1981 and requested time till 31.12.1993 to achieve the
standard.
D
15. That in view of these directions the deponent granted consent
to M/s. Mohan Meakins vide order dated 21.4.93. But it has been
specifically mentioned in this order that this consent is being
granted subject to the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in the
E abovementioned case. Since the unit has already been closed in
pursuance of order dt. 15.1.93 passed by this Hon'ble Court w.e.f.
1.4.93, the same ought not to have been operated without seeking
permission of this Hon'ble Court because consent was granted
subject to order dated 15.1.93. Merely because application seeking
consent has been disposed of by the Board docs not mean that
F
permission to operate the industry was granted by the deponent.

16. That in case the U.P. Pollution Control Board did not dispose
of the application of any industries seeking consent within 4 months
as per sub-section 7 of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and
G Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 it will be deemed to be granted
unconditionally.

17. That in the light of the abovementioned facts and circumstan-
ces, it is most respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that
H the deponent had never intended to permit the induf.try to operate
V.K. MATHUR v. U.0.L [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,.!.] 821

their plaint and \Vhile issuing consent order the deponent has A
specifically mentioned therein that this order is subject to orders
passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above noted \Vrit petition. As
there is a specific condition in the above noted order, the industry
\Vithout ensuring con1pliance of such condition cannot operate its
industrial plant as the same was already lying dosed down pursuant B
to order <lated 15.1.93 of this Hon'ble Court."

An extract of the note put up by Sri Darshan Singh as also the order
• passed thereon by Sri Pradeep Kumar are placed before us. The relevant
portion of the note reads as under :
c
"Wherefore under provisions of Section 18 read with Section 27(2)
clause B of the Water Act, 1974, pursuant to above mentioned
Govt. Order dt. 20.4.93 read with letter dt. 2.4.93 of M/s. Mohan
Meakins, Lucknow regarding water consent, after reviewing the
water consent refusal of the industry under Section 25 of the Water D
Act, 1974 in exercise of the power conferred under clause B of
sub-section (2) of Section 27 proposal to grant the water consent
by the State Board to the industry for the year 1993 is submitted
for approval. While granting the water consent in said consent
order alongwith other various conditions this specific condition has E
been proposed to be imposed essentially that as the industry have
installed E.T.P. hence the industry shall discharge its trade effluent
only after treatment of the same in accordance with prescribed
standard. It is also proposed to mention specifically in consent
order that said consent order shall be subject to order/directions F
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. No. 327/90 Vineet
Kumar Mathur v. Union of India.

Acoc>dingly after issuing the consent order to the industry, it is
proposed that these facts be placed before Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Copy of Order dt. 15.4.93 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court G
is enclosed herewith.

Submitled for perusal.

sd/-Jllegible H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 21.4.93

(Darshan Singh)
Member Secretary
U.P. Pollution Control Board,
Lucknow
B
To Chaimwn

Instead of the condition stated in part A it is proposed that this
condition be imposed that the industry will discharge its trade
c effluent after treating it to whatever extent it is competent to do
so and continue to treat the effluent regularly and will ensure to
achieve the standard by 31.12.93.

sd/- Illegible
21.4.93
D Member Secretary

By Chainnan

This industry has been established prior to 16.5.81 and it has
requested for time till 31.12.93 to achieve the standard. Pursuant
E to Government Order dated 20.4.93 no objections should be raised
for grant of consent. However, while granting consent, this condi-
tion be imposed that the unit shall not make any wilful default in
operation of its E.T.P. and will discharge its effluent after treating
the same to bring down the E.O.P. to the extent for which its E.T.P.
F is capable lo achieve.

sd/- Illegible
21.4.93

(Pradeep Kumar)
G Chairman
U.P. Pollution Control Board.
Lucknow

Member Secret01y/C-V
H sd/- Illegible
V.K.MATHURv. U.0.1.[B.P.JEEVANREDDY,J.] 823

It is significant lo note that Para 3 of this note does refer to the order A
of this Court dated January 15, 1993 and to the refusal of consent by P.C.B.
to Mohan Meakins on March 31, 1993 yet it says that in view of the
instructions issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government on April, 20, 1993,
the order dated March 31, 1993 refusing consent is liable to be reviewed
under Section 27 of the Water Act. It singularly fails to point out that the
B
refusal of consent on March 31, 1993 was pursuant to and in terms of the
Court's order dated January 15, 1993 and cannot, therefore, be reviewed
without reference to this Court. It is equally significant to notice that Sri
Pradeep Kumar too does not refer to this aspect in his endorsement. As a
matter of fact, his endorsement does not even say specifically that consent
be granted subject to the orders of this Court. It looks as if for both of C
them, the orders of the Uttar Pradesh Government issued on April 20, 1993
were sacrosant and superseded the orders of this Court as well. It is a
matter of regret that even responsible and senior officers of the govern-
ment have acted in this manner. It is clear e·nough that the officials were
anxious to somehow make out a case for enabling the Mohan Meakins to D
operate its plant and machinery regardless of the orders of this Court. We
may also incidentally notice the unusual speed with which the matter was
processed. The Uttar Pradesh Government's orders, general in nature, are
dated April 20, 1993. On the very next day, Sri Darshan Singh put up the
note, which was approved by Sri Pradeep Kumar on the same day and the
'consent' also issued on the same day. E

Sri V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for
Sri Darshan Singh reiterated the reasons and circumstances in which the
Member-Secretary had put up the said note. He submitted that the Mem-
ber-Secretary was bound by the direction given by the Chairman and that F
he had no option but to issue the consent pursuant to the orders of the
Chairman. Learned counsel affirmed the unconditional apology tendered
by Sri Darshan Singh and pleaded for its acceptance as a true expression
of contr:•:;,ess on his part.

Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances aforesaid, G
we hold that Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Darshan Singh are both guilty of
violation of. this Court's order dated January 15, 1993. In view of the
explanation put forward by them and the several circumstances stated by
them, however, we are inclined to accept their unconditional apology. At
the same time, we administer a severe warning to both the officers that H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A repetition of any such violation shall be viewed seriously. A copy of this
Order shall form part of the service record of both the officers.

The contempt petition is ordered accordingly.

As stated hereinabove, insofar as the contempt proceedings against
B Brig. Kapil Mohan and Sri Yogesh Kumar, Managing Director and Chief
Executive Officer respectively, of Mohan Meakins are concerned, orders
will be passed later after hearing them on the fresh notice issued on
October 12, 1995.

v.s.s. Petition disposed of.