M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (SC)
BS493211
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before:- A.S. Anand, B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare, JJ.
W.P. (C) No. 13029 of 1985 (with WP (C) Nos. 939 of 1996, 95 of 1997, 145 of 1998 & SLP ......(CC No. 4931 of 1998. D/d.
28.7.1998.
M.C. Mehta - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation - Environment - Vehicular Pollution - Directions issued by Court in various Interlocutory Application.
[Para ]
JUDGMENT
WP (C) NOS. 13029/85 & 939/96
VEHICULAR POLLUTION
1. Further directions are issued in terms of the signed order.
2. On May 12, 1998 we had issued certain directions with regard to furnishing of a list of persons from every colony/area in each of the 9 police districts of Delhi to assist the Court to appoint persons out of that list as Court Officers to assist the Administration with a view to ensure compliance of the directions issued by this Court. The learned Additional Solicitor General was also directed to have the affidavits filed from the Ministry of Petroleum and Ministry of Surface Transport disclosing the steps taken for supply of lead free petrol and the use of catalytic converter on the new as well as existing vehicles so as to use lead free petrol throughout the country. The affidavits were required to be filed within ten weeks. Those affidavits have not been filed and the Court has also not been informed about the action taken in that behalf.
3. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned ASG submits that proper affidavits giving full details shall be filed within three weeks. We grant his prayer.
4. Delhi Administration shall also, through an affidavit of the competent officer, inform the Court regarding the action taken to identify the person/ persons from different police districts to enable the Court to appoint them as Court Officers. This exercise shall also be done within three weeks.
5. The Transport Commissioner (Delhi) as also the D.C.P. (Traffic) shall remain present in Court on every date of hearing . unless their presence is exempted.
6. Post after three weeks on a date to be communicated by the learned amicus curiae to the Registry.
IA. No. 13
7. No one appears to prosecute the application. I.A. 13 is, therefore, rejected.
RE: Hoardings
8. On November 20, 1997 a direction was issued by this Court to the civic authorities including DDA, railways, police and transport authorities to identify and remove all hoardings which are on road side and are considered hazardous and disturbance to safe traffic movement. Direction was also given to take steps to put up road/traffic signs which facilitate free flow of traffic.
9. Affidavits by the concerned authorities shall be filed indicating compliance with the aforesaid directions. The needful shall be done within three weeks.
IA No. 14
10. No one appears to prosecute the application. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
IA No. 17
11. Heard Ms. Kiran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned amicus curiae. The two hoardings as shown at page 9 of the paper-book of this I.A. have been put up by the applicant-Indraprasta Apollo Hospital. These hoardings appear to us to be in public interest. We, therefore, clarify that the ban orders issued by this Court on 20th November, 1997 and 10th December, 1997 shall be so read as to exclude the removal of those two hoardings.
12. The application is allowed in the terms indicated above.
IA Nos. 15-16
13. On 12th May, 1998 Mr. Sanghi took notice of these applications for directions filed on behalf of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). He was granted eight weeks' to file his response. The needful has not been done till date. A request is made on his behalf for a short adjournment to file the response. Two weeks' further time is granted for the purpose.
14. In our order dated 12th May, 1998 we had observed that in case the applicant/RSRTC approaches the Delhi Administration for grant of such relief as may be permissible to them. in law, the Delhi Administration, may look into its grievances and the pendency of the proceedings in these lAs would not come in their.
15. We are informed by Mr. Shansi Bhushan, learned Senior counsel, that RSRTC has by its representations dated 19th May, 1998 and 11th June, 1998 brought its difficulties to the notice of the Secretary, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Transport Authority, Delhi as well as the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Transport Department, Delhi. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel submits that these representations have not evoked any orders till date and the RSRTC is facing great hardship in providing service to the passengers.
16. With a view to have the matter examined properly and keeping in view the interest of the tourists and the travelling public visiting Rajasthan, it appears appropriate to us to direct Secretary, State Transport Authority, Transport Department, New Delhi to convene a meeting of the Secretary, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Transport Department, Delhi; Secretary, Transport Department of the Government of Rajasthan and the Secretary, Transport Department of the Government of Haryana to look into the grievances and suggest an appropriate scheme or remedial measures. The needful shall be done expeditiously and the report of the Committee furnished to this Court within three weeks
IA No. 18
17. In view of the orders made by us in I.A. Nos. 15-16 no orders are required on this I.A. It is filed.
IA no. 19
18. Through this application, the applicant Delhi Transport Corporation seeks modification of the directions issued on 16th December, 1997. Extension of time has also been prayed for complying with those directions.
19. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no modification whatsoever is called for in the order dated 16th December, 1997- which was made essentially for the safety of the school children travelling in those buses. The prayer for modification of the order is accordingly rejected.
20. However, as a last chance, in the interest of justice, we grant time to the applicant to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 16th December, 1997 on or before 31st October, 1998. Action taken report shall be filed in this Court by 7th January, 1999.
21. Post WP (C) Nos. 13029, of 4985 and 939 of 1996 after three weeks on a date to be communicated by the learned amicus curiae to the registry for further proceedings
WP (C) No. 95/97
22. Delink and list separately for hearing in the normal course.
WP (C) No. 145/98
23. Delink and list in the normal course and tag with WP (C) No. 95 of 1997.
SLP (C) NO ....................... (CC 4931/98)
24. Issue notice in the application seeking condonation of delay. Issue notice also in the special leave petition. Notices shall also be served on the learned amicus curiae Mr. Harish Salve through Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, Adv.
.