http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: VINEET KUMAR MATHUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/11/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 119        JT 1995 (8)    27  1995 SCALE  (6)241

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY.      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 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)      M/s. Mohan Meakins, Daliganj, Lucknow;      (2) M/s. Oudh Sugar Mill, Hargaon,      Sitapur; (3)  M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.,      Gola Gorakhnath, Kheri (Sugar Unit-      Distillery); (4) M/s. Sharda Sugar Mill,      Palia Lakhimpur  Kheri (New Name - Bajaj      Hindustan Ltd., Unit Palia Lakhimpur      Kheri); (5) M/s. Balaji Vegetable      Product, Sitapur; (6) M/s. Kissan      Cooperative Sugar Mill, Majhola,      Pilibhit; (7) M/s. U.P. State Sugar      Corpn, Maholi, Sitapur; (8) M/s. HAL      Lucknow; (9) M/s. Lucknow Producers Milk      Union, Lucknow Industries.           "The officers of the State      Pollution Board will visit the above      industrial establishments and make a      fresh inspection of the effluent      treatment plants installed in the said      establishments and  of their working. If      there are any applications made by these      industries for consent of the Board,      they will be disposed of after      inspection and within three weeks from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

    today. If  after inspection, it is found      that the  treatment plants are deficient      in any respect or the deficiency pointed      out earlier still continues, the Board      will give reasonable time for 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 industrial establishments      concerned after the expiry of the time      given to  them to cure the deficiencies,      and, make their report to this Court      before 7th April, 1993.           If the industries in question do      not obtain the consent of the State      Pollution Board for running their units,      before 31st  March, 1993, the industries      will stop  functioning after 31st March,      1993.           As regards  the Municipal Boards of      Pilibhit, Barabanki, Sitapur, Sultanpur,      Jaunpur, Lakhimpur Kheri, they are      directed to instal the effluent      treatment plant on or before 30th April,      1993 and obtain a certificate from the      State 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      required to  file their affidavits on or      before 30th April, 1993 that they have      complied with the above directions.           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      before 30th April, 1993.           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 effluent treatment plant by 21st March, 1993, no  consent was granted to it by the Pollution Control Board. It  stopped functioning from Ist April, 1993 onwards. The letter  dated March  31, 1993 addressed to Mohan Meakins by the  Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (at 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, 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 the Water Act. Before we refer to the orders passed on this application, we may refer  to some other developments which have taken place in the meanwhile.      On April 6, 1993, the P.C.B. filed an affidavit in this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

Court stating, inter alia, that the consent has been refused to Mohan  Meakins for  failing 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 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 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 deficiencies 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 dated February 12, 1992.      On April  15, 1993, this Court passed an order (at Page 520 of the record) holding that running of the plant between 7th and  11th of  April, 1993  by Mohan  Meakins prima facie amounts to violation of this Court’s order dated January 15, 1993. Accordingly,  notices  were  issued  to  the  Managing Director of  Mohan Meakins,  Brig. Kapil  Mohan, and  to the Chief Executive Officer, Sri Yogesh Kumar, to show cause why they should  not 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 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 Mohan Meakins is not justified but even here  the P.C.B.  did not  disclose 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 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.      On October  8, 1993,  this Court  passed the  following order in  view of the failure of Mohan Meakins to respond to the letters from Sri Parekh:      "Inspite of the letter written by the      learned counsel for petitioner on May 8,      1993 requesting the learned advocate for      the 2nd respondent to send him copies of      all the applications for consent,      appeals together  with the annexures and      copies of the orders, passed either by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

    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 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 to pay the cost of adjournment      which is fixed at Rs. 10,000/- as a      condition precedent.  The matter will be      before this Bench as part-heard."      In compliance  with the  above order,  an affidavit was filed on  October 24,  1993 on  behalf of  Mohan Meakins (at Page 595  of the  record) disclosing  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 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,  Member-Secretary,  Uttar  Pradesh 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. 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 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 empowered the Central Government to give directions to  the P.C.B.;  (3) to  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  of  the  Uttar Pradesh Government order dated April 20, 1993, mentioning at the same  time that  the consent so granted shall be subject to the  orders 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 objection in  granting consent to M/s. Mohan Meakins in view of G.O. dated 20.4.1993 since this unit has been established before 16.5.1991  and  requested  time  till  31.12.1993  to achieve the 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 which empowered the Board to review its order refusing consent.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

    On July  20, 1994,  an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State  Government (sworn-to  by Sri  S.N.Shukla, Special Secretary, Environment) 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 order.      In view  of the  affidavit of 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 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 considered 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:      "11. That 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 effluents to the extent      possible in  ETP and also subject to the      orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in      W.P. No. 327/90 Vineet Kumar Mathur      Versus Union of India & Ors.      12.  That the proposal of the Member-      Secretary was approved by the deponent      and it was directed not to raise any      objections as  per 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      Court.      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 to this      affidavit."      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 affidavit on October  12,  1995.  In  this  affidavit,  he  tendered  his unconditional apology for violating the orders of this Court and prayed  that in  the circumstances  stated  therein  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

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 Government of Uttar Pradesh referring, inter alia, to the Government of India 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  at  the  highest level in  the Government  (including the Advisor to H.E. the Governor) he  put up  a proposal to issue appropriate orders to P.C.B.  that the industry established before May 16, 1981 may not  be refused  consent and that such industries may be given  time   till  December  31,  1993  for  achieving  the prescribed level  of efficiency  in their effluent treatment plants. Accordingly,  the Government  issued orders on April 20,  1993   following  which   Sri  Darshan   Singh,  Member Secretary, Uttar  Pradesh Pollution  Control Board  put up a proposal for  granting consent,  which he  approved  stating that no  objection be  raised for  granting consent to Mohan Meakins. In his note, he made it clear that any such consent shall be  subject to  the orders  of this Court. Sri Pradeep Kumar admitted  that it  was a  lepse  on  his  part,  as  a Chairman of  the Pollution  Control Board,  in not  ensuring that this  Court is informed of the said consent immediately and in  not obtaining  appropriate orders in that behalf. He further stated  that he  is a  senior member  of the  I.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. 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 concerned, it transpired during the course of hearing that the notice issued to the Managing Director and  the Chief  Executive Officer pertained only to their runnig  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  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  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,  1995. These  orders are,  therefore, confined to Sri Pradeep Kumar and Sri Darshan Singh only.      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.      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

inspection by  the P.C.B., the removal of deficiencies et al were all  to be  completed by  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 consent was granted on April 21, 1993 by the Pollution Control Board 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.  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  on deficiencies  till December 31, 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  to  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 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 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  person(s) issuing the consent. Firstly, the order  of this  Court dated  January 15,  1993 precluded grant of any consent subsequent to March 31, 1993. Secondly, there was  no point  in saying  that the  said  consent  was "subject 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.  If 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 a consent with the said misleading words  allowing the  industry to operate contrary to the  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, 1993, It may be recalled, Mohan  Meakins stated  that inasmuch  as they have complied with  the prescribed  norms they  should be granted consent whereas  the consent  actually granted  contemplates Mohan Meakins  achieving 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 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  cover in future if and when someone complained of  violation of the order of this Court. In this view of  this 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 Court  dated January  15, 1993. Question then arises, whether  the unconditional  apology tendered by them

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

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 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 arguments, however, Sri Kapil Sibal, learned counsel for Sri Pradeep 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  affidavit and  his assurance  that he will never  allow any such situation to arise in future, the unconditional apology  tendered  by  him  may  be  accepted. Counsel submitted  that Sri Pradeep Kumar is truly repenting his lapse  and the  unconditional apology  by him is born of genuine contriteness.      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 the  basis of  the application  made by Mohan Meakins on April 2,1993. The relevant paras in his affidavit are Paras 13 to 17 which read thus:      "13. That the deponent on 21.4.93      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 M/s. 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 case.      14.  That the Charman, U.P.Pollution      Control Board/Secretary, 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.      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 abovementioned  case. Since the unit      has already  been closed in pursuance of      order dt.15.1.93  passed by this Hob’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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

    dated 15.1.93. Merely because      application seeking consent has been      disposed of the Board does not mean that      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 Control of Pollution)      Act, 1974 it will be deemed to be      granted unconditionally.      17.  That in the light of the      abovementioned facts  and circumstances,      it is most respectfully submitted before      this Hon’ble Court that the deponent had      never intended to permit the industry to      operate their plant and while issuing      consent order the deponent has      specifically mentioned therein that this      order is subject to order passed by this      Hon’ble Court in the above noted writ      petition. As there is a specific      condition in  the above noted order, the      industry without  ensuring compliance of      such condition cannot operate its      industrial plant as the same was already      lying closed down pursuant to order      dated 15.1.93 of this Hon’ble Court."      An extract  of the  note put up by Sri Darshan Singh as also the  orders passed  thereon by  Sri Pradeep  Kumar  are placed before  us. The relevant portion of the note reads as under:      "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 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      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 issued by the      Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.327/90      Vineet Kumar Mathur Vs.Union of India.      Accordingly after issuing the consent      order to the industry, it is proposed      that these facts be placed before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

    Hon’ble Supreme Court. Copy of Order      dt.15.4.93 passed by Hon’ble Supreme      Court is enclosed herewith.           Submitted for perusal.                     sd/-IIIegible                          21.4.93                     (Darshan singh)                     Member Secretary                U.P.Pollution Control Board,                          Lucknow      To chairman      Instead of  the condition stated in part      A it  is proposed that this condition be      imposed that the industry will discharge      its trade  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/- IIlegible                                21.4.93                          Member Secretary      By Chairman      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 to Government Order dated      20.4.93 no objections should be raised      for grant of consent. However,   while      granting consent, this condition be      imposed that the unit shall not make any      wilfull default in operation of its      E.T.P. and will discharge its effluent      after treating the same to bring down      the E.O.D. to the extent for which its      E.T.P. is capable to achieve.                          Sd/- Illegible                               21.4.93                          (Pradeep Kumar)                               Chairman                U.P.Pollution Control Board                               Lucknow      Member Secretary/C-V           sd/- Illegible"      It is significant to note that Para 3 of this Note 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 instructions issued by  the Uttar  Pradesh Government  on April 20, 1993, the order dated March 31, 1993 refusing consent is liable to be reviewd  under Section 27 of the Water Act. 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 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 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 Government have acted in this  manner. It  is clear enough that the officials were anxious to  somehow make  out a  case for enabling the Mohan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

Meakins to 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.      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 Member-Secretary was bound by the  direction given  by the  Chairman and that 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 contriteness on his part.      Taking   into   consideration   all   the   facts   and circumstances aforesaid,  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 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  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,