Kumar Mathur Vs. Union of India & Ors  INSC 641
(8 November 1995)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J) B.P. Jeevan Reddy.
1996 SCC (1) 119 JT 1995 (8) 27 1995 SCALE (6)241
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
following order will apply to:
M/s. Mohan Meakins, Daliganj, Lucknow;
M/s. Oudh Sugar Mill, Hargaon, Sitapur;
M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Gola Gorakhnath, Kheri (Sugar Unit- Distillery);
M/s. Sharda Sugar Mill, Palia Lakhimpur Kheri (New Name - Bajaj Hindustan Ltd.,
Unit Palia Lakhimpur Kheri);
M/s. Balaji Vegetable Product, Sitapur;
M/s. Kissan Cooperative Sugar Mill, Majhola, Pilibhit;
M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corpn, Maholi, Sitapur;
M/s. HAL Lucknow;
M/s. Lucknow Producers Milk Union, Lucknow
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 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.
the time so given should not extend beyond 21st March, 1993.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 Court stating, inter alia, that the consent has been refused to Mohan Meakins
for failing to remove the deficiencies in effluent treatment plant.
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.
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.
coming back to the application made by the P.C.B.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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
Section 18 of the Water Act which empowered the Central Government to give
directions to the P.C.B.;
the order of this Court dated January 15, 1993
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.
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.
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:
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 &
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Kumar was the Chairman and Sri Darshan Singh was the Member-Secretary of the
Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board at the relevant time.
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 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.
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 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.
submitted that Sri Pradeep Kumar is truly repenting his lapse and the
unconditional apology by him is born of genuine contriteness.
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
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
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 Accordingly 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
is enclosed herewith.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
of this Order shall form part of the service record of both the officers.
contempt petition is ordered accordingly.