Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a public interest litigation initiated by Vineet Kumar Mathur against Union of India and others concerning pollution of the Gomti river. Mohan Meakins Limited, a distillery, was one of the industries under scrutiny. The Supreme Court passed a series of orders leading to the order dated January 15, 1993, which directed that industries that did not achieve the prescribed anti-pollution standards by March 21, 1993 would have to close down with effect from March 31, 1993. Mohan Meakins' plant was inspected in March 1993 and found not to have achieved the required standards. A formal closure order was served on March 31, 1993, and the plant was closed from April 1, 1993. However, the plant was operated between April 7 and 11, 1993. The Managing Director Brig. Kapil Mohan and Chief Executive Officer Sri Yogesh Kumar claimed they operated the plant to avoid danger to public health from destabilization if closed for more than seven days. They also filed affidavits in the Supreme Court on April 6 and 7, 1993 stating these reasons. Simultaneously, on April 2, 1993, Mohan Meakins applied to the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board for consent, claiming they had now achieved the prescribed anti-pollution standards. The Board granted consent on April 21, 1993, but with a condition that the plant should achieve the prescribed standards by December 31, 1993. The consent also stated that it was subject to the orders of the Supreme Court. Based on this consent, the plant was restarted on April 21 or 23, 1993. Two contempt notices were issued. On the first notice, the Court found the contemnors guilty, rejecting the explanation because they had not applied to the Court or the Board for permission to operate for a few days, the Board disputed the necessity, and the company ought to have planned a phased closure. The Court also noted that a mere affidavit filed in Court did not amount to permission or suspension of the closure order. On the second notice, the contemnors argued that the closure order did not bar a fresh application for consent, they had achieved the standards by April 2, and they understood the Hindi word 'adheen' in the consent order to mean 'under' not 'subject to'. The Court rejected this plea, observing that the history of the case showed repeated violations and non-achievement of standards. The consent granted with a future compliance date was in total violation of the Court's order dated January 15, 1993, because if they had already achieved the standards, no such condition was needed. The Court held that the contemnors should have approached the Supreme Court for clarification before restarting the plant. The Court also noted that the contemnors and the Board concealed the fact of the consent from the Court by not mentioning it in affidavits filed on April 27 and May 1, 1993. The Court found the contemnors guilty on the first notice and strongly indicated guilt on the second notice, but the final conclusion on the second charge is not fully available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Civil Contempt - Violation of Closure Order - Operating polluting plant without permission between 7-11 April 1993 - Supreme Court held that explanation of avoiding destabilization was not acceptable because no application for permission was made to Court or Pollution Control Board, company should have planned closure, and PCB disputed the reason; thus contemnors guilty of violating order dated 15 January 1993. Held: act is clear violation of Court's order. B) Contempt of Court - Obtaining Consent in Violation of Closure Order - Consent from Pollution Control Board with condition to achieve standards by December 31, 1993 was in direct conflict with prior closure order - Court rejected plea that word 'adheen' was understood as 'under', finding it ex-facie unacceptable; contemnors ought to have approached Court for clarification instead of restarting plant. Held: consent order was total violation of Court's order. C) Environmental Law - Water Pollution - Closure of industries not meeting anti-pollution standards - The Court noted that Mohan Meakins had been refused consent and was discharging effluents into Gomti river in violation of pollution control laws; time was given to achieve standards but not met; hence closure order was justified and non-compliance constitutes contempt. Held: brazen disregard of court orders and pollution laws not permissible.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the contemnors (Managing Director and CEO of Mohan Meakins Limited) are guilty of contempt of court by operating their plant between 7th and 11th April 1993 in violation of this Court's order dated January 15, 1993; and whether obtaining consent from the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board on April 21, 1993 and operating the plant on that basis also constituted contempt of court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held the contemnors guilty of the first contempt notice regarding operation of the plant between April 7-11, 1993, finding their explanation unacceptable. On the second notice concerning the consent obtained on April 21, 1993, the Court rejected the contemnors' plea that they understood 'adheen' as 'under', observing that the consent order was in total violation of the Court's order dated January 15, 1993, and they ought to have approached the Court for clarification before restarting the plant. However, the final conclusion on the second charge is not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt; the available text strongly indicates a finding of guilt but does not include the operative punishment or final order.
Law Points
- Contempt of court arises from wilful disobedience of court orders
- a mere affidavit filed in court does not amount to permission to violate a closure order
- obtaining consent from a pollution control board contrary to a court's closure order constitutes contempt
- parties must approach the court for clarification before acting on a consent that conflicts with a court order.
