{"id":237769,"date":"1999-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999"},"modified":"2018-09-19T21:29:46","modified_gmt":"2018-09-19T15:59:46","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: M Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: S S Ahmad, M Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.C.  MEHTA VERSUS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS S Ahmad, M Jagannadha Rao\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 D E R<\/p>\n
M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  application has been filed by the Gas  Authority
\nof  India  Limited  (for  short `GAIL’)\t for  the  following
\nreliefs:\n<\/p>\n
      “(a)  extend  the\t schedule  for\t supply\t of  gas  to
\nindustries  in Zone-I of Agra City, laid down vide the order
\ndated  3\/04\/98 passed by this Hon’ble court in such a manner
\nthat  in respect of cupola based industries supply of gas by
\nGAIL coincides with the readiness of the consumer industries
\nto draw gas;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  direct  non-cupola based industries in Zone-I  of
\nAgra to draw gas latest by September, 1999;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)  direct  the Secretary, PWD, Government  of  Uttar
\nPradesh,  and  Secretary\/Director   General,  Government  of
\nIndia, Ministry of Surface Transport to grant the permission
\nfor  underpinning the gas pipeline to the Yamuna Road Bridge
\nwithin\tfour weeks so that GAIL may be able to the  schedule
\nfor  supply  of\t gas to Zone-II and III laid  down  by\tthis
\nHon’ble Court vide its order dated 3\/04\/98.”\n<\/p>\n
      The first relief concerns Zone-I and the second relief
\nconcerns  Zone-II  and\tIII in the city of Agra.   We  shall
\nfirst  deal with Zone-I and thereafter with Zone II and III.
\nZone  I.  On 3.4.1998, this Court directed the GAIL that  it
\nshould\tstart  supply  of Natural Gas to the  Industries  in
\nZone-I\tfrom  July, 1998 so as to make available gas to\t the
\nspecified industries by December, 1998.\t It is now stated by
\nGAIL  that  till  December, 1998, 115 consumers out  of\t 168
\n(referred  to the order of this Court dated 30.12.96)  alone
\nhad  contacted\tGAIL  for  supply  of  natural\tgas.   Other
\nindustries  in\tZone-I did not contact GAIL.  It was  stated
\nthat GAIL had made gas available in April, 1998 to its first
\nconsumer  in May, 1998 and that by September, 1998, GAIL had
\ncompleted  gas pipeline network to supply gas to all the 115
\nconsumers  with whom it had entered into a contract in Zone-
\nI.   The complaint is that 79 out of these 115 consumers are
\nnot  coming  forward  in Zone-I and are\t cupola\t based\tiron
\nfoundries.   The  rest\tare non cupola.\t All these  115\t had
\ngiven  an  undertaking earlier to receive natural  gas\tfrom
\nGAIL.  These 79 industries have been awaiting the technology
\nto  be\tdeveloped by the National  Metallurgical  Laboratory
\n(hereinafter  called  the `NML’) for conversion\t to  natural
\ngas.   GAIL  feels that there is likelihood of delay in\t the
\ndrawal\tof  gas\t by the 79 cupola based\t iron  foundries  in
\nZone-I\tby the target dated 31.12.1998.\t Only 4 cupola based\n<\/p>\n
– customers are likely to draw Gas by December, 1998.\n<\/p>\n
      On   12.4.1999,  this  Court   issued  notice  to\t  79
\nindustries  in Zone-I requiring them to show cause why\tthey
\nwere  not  availing  of the gas facility to be\tsupplied  by
\nGAIL.\tThey were also asked to state why they did not\twant
\nto  draw  the  gas and why their industries  should  not  be
\nallowed to be closed down.\n<\/p>\n
      On  5.4.1999,  an affidavit of the Agra Iron  Founding
\nAssociation has been filed stating that 78 (and not 79) were
\ncupola\tbased (item 74 Diwan Chand Suraj Prakash Jain is not
\ncupola\tbased).\t  The  affidavit is filed on  behalf  of  78
\ncupola\tbased industries.  They admit that on 30.12.1996, in
\nM.C.Mehta  vs.\tUnion of India<\/a> 1997 (2) SCC 353, orders have
\nbeen  passed  recording the undertaking on behalf  of  these
\nindustries  for receiving gas as industrial fuel.  They then
\nrefer  to the chronology of the steps taken by them bonafide
\nfor  conversion\t by approaching NML and Tata-Korf and  their
\nspending  huge sums of money in that connection.  They state
\nthat  the problem is that fool-proof technology for these 78
\nindustries  to use natural gas is not yet ready, though\t now
\nit is in the last stages of completion, -through the efforts
\nof  NML of Tata-Korf who have been working on a project.  As
\nsoon  as the technology is available, the 78 industries will
\nswitch-over  to\t natural  gas.\tThey rely on  the  extension
\ngranted to GAIL earlier upto December, 1998 as the cause for
\ndelay in switching over.  NML has conducted 10 trials on its
\nnew  technology\t but  these tests have\tnot  been  initially
\nsuccessful.   The 78 industries have entered into  agreement
\nwith  GAIL  agreeing to switch over to natural gas and\thave
\npaid   Rs.2  lakhs  as\tsecurity   and\tgiven\tRs.6   lakhs
\nguarantee\/indemnity.   They  have paid Rs.14 lakhs  to\tTata
\nKorf  in  January,  1998.   On 6.2.1998 NML  and  Tata\tKorf
\nvisited\t Agra and on 10.2.78, the Association placed  orders
\nwith  Tata Korf for supply of the technology.  On 19.3.1998,
\nthe  Association  has entered into agreement with Tata\tKorf
\nunder  which  Rs.20 lakhs have been paid as advance  out  of
\nRs.40  lakhs.\tKnow how has been agreed to be\tprovided  by
\n31.7.1999  but the trial runs have failed.  A chart is filed
\nin  this  behalf.  In all, 32 lakhs have been paid  to\tTata
\nKorf.\tOn  22.4.1999, there has been a meeting\t with  Tata-
\nKorf.\tAll  these steps have been taken during\t 1997,\t1998
\nupto 22.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n
      On 26.4.1999, Tata Korf has written to the Association
\nthat  the  commissioning of the cupola and  stabilizing\t the
\nsame  will  take  place in 1st part of July, 1999  and\tthey
\nexpect “to receive the orders” from the Association in July,
\n1999  after  the  cupola  is   successfully  worked  to\t the
\nsatisfaction  of the Association.  The schedule of supply of
\ncupola is:\n<\/p>\n
      (a) 10 cupolas in 4 months<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b) in each month 5-6 cupolas can be completed.<\/p>\n
      After installation, those cupolas require fine tuning.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On  3.8.1999, Tata Korf has written to the Association
\nthat they had installed the new instrumentation successfully
\non  15.6.1999.\t Some more heats have to be developed.\t The
\ndemonstration  unit  will  be established fully\t by  end  of
\nSeptember,  1999.  Same schedule of supply as stated earlier
\nis given.\n<\/p>\n
      We have heard learned senior counsel Sri V.R.Reddy for
\nGAIL  and  Sri Sanjay Parikh for the Association.   We\thave
\nalso  heard  Sri  Krishan Mahajan and  Sri  Vijay  Panjwani.
\nLearned counsel Sri Krishan Mahajan has suggested that these
\n78  industries\thave  been dodging  and\t procrastinating  in
\nshifting  to natural gas and that as per the orders of\tthis
\nCourt dated 30.12.1996 in M.C.Mehta vs.\t Union of India<\/a> 1997
\n(2) SCC 353, direction No.  5 requires that once the GAIL is
\nready,\tthe  industries, if they did not convert to  natural
\ngas,  they have to close down.\tNow GAIL has been ready\t for
\nsupply\tof natural gas in September 1999 and at any rate  by
\nDecember, 1999 in respect of all the 115 industries who have
\nagreed\tto convert to gas.  Inasmuch as these 78  industries
\nhave  not  become  ready to convert, they are liable  to  be
\nclosed down forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
      On the other hand, learned counsel for the Association
\nSri  Sanjay  Parikh has contended that in view of the  above
\nsteps  taken by the industries during 1997, 1998 and 1999 as
\nnarrated  earlier, the stage is now set for switch over\t and
\nthat  it will create great hardship if the industries are to
\nbe  directed  to  be  closed   down  now.   Summarising\t the
\nposition,  it is as follows.  The correspondence between the
\nAssociation  and NML and Tata Korf, it shows that by end  of
\nSeptember, 1999, the demonstration unit will be established.
\nThereafter,  cupola  will be supplied – 10 in 4\t months\t and
\nthen  in each month, 5 or 6 cupolas will be supplied.\tNow,
\ngoing  by the date September, 1999, it looks as if 10 cupola
\nunits  will be supplied by January, 2000 ( i.e.\t in 4 months
\n) and by the time all these 78 cupola industries change over
\nto  gas,  ( as per the time schedule given by Tata Korf)  it
\nwill  be  another  17 months – which will take us  to  July,
\n2001.\tThis  will be the time span on the  assumption\tthat
\nconversion  to\tnatural\t gas  will be started  by  these  78
\nindustries after September, 1999.\n<\/p>\n
      Now  in the orders of this Court dated 30.12.1996, the
\ndirections (4) and (5) read as follows:\t (at p.304):\n<\/p>\n
      “(4).   Those  industries which neither apply for\t gas
\nconnection  nor\t for alternative industrial plot shall\tstop
\nfunctioning  with  the\taid of coke\/coal in the\t TTZ  w.e.f.
\nApril  30,  1997.  supply of coke\/coal to  these  industries
\nshall be stopped forthwith.  The District Magistrate and the
\nSuperintendent\tof  Police  shall have this  order  complied
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
      (5)  The\tGAIL  shall commence supply of\tgas  to\t the
\nindustries  by June 30, 1997.  As soon as the gas supply  to
\nan  industry commences, the supply of coke\/coal to the\tsaid
\nindustry shall be stopped with immediate effect.”\n<\/p>\n
      In the above background, the question is whether these
\n78  cupola  industries\tare  to be allowed  to\tfunction  on
\ncoal\/coke  without  receiving  natural gas.  So far  as\t the
\nremaining  non-cupola  industries which are 37 (out of\t115)
\nwho  have  contracted to draw, there is no reason  why\tthey
\nhave  not accepted the supply of natural gas.  Out of these,
\nwe are told only 8 industries were drawing natural gas.\t The
\nrest  29 have been obviously taking it easy.  We can  divide
\nthe  discussion into the various categories as follows:\t (1)
\nThe  overall  total was 168 and only 115 have  entered\tinto
\nagreement  with\t GAIL.\tTherefore, so far as  the  remaining
\n(168-115)  =  53 iron foundries are concerned, there  is  no
\njustification  for  them  to  function –  unless  they\thave
\nshifted\t out  –\t and  under  clause 4  of  the\torder  dated
\n30.12.1996  of\tthis Court, the said 53 iron  foundries\t are
\nalready\t liable\t to  be closed.\t If they have  not  shifted,
\nthese  53 industries must stop forthwith as they have  acted
\nin  breach  of\tdirection  No.4.   (2)\tSo  far\t as  the  29
\nnon-cupola  industries\tout of 115 (excluding 8\t which\thave
\nswitched  over\tto  gas),  there can  be  no  difficulty  in
\napplying  clause  5  of\t the order of  this  Court.   If  by
\n15.9.1999,  these 29 industries do not accept gas, clause  5
\nof the order dated 30.12.1996 shall apply forthwith to them.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)  So  far  as the 78 cupola  based  industries\t are
\nconcerned,  the question is what order is to be passed?\t  We
\nhave  shown that even if the conversion starts from October,
\n1999,  the  time  frame for all the 78\tindustries  will  be
\neasily\t21  months – which will take us to July 2001.\tThis
\nCourt  has given enough time to these industries right\tfrom
\n31.12.1996.   We do not mean to say that they have not taken
\nsome steps for conversion but if the Tata Korf time-schedule
\ncan  give the conversion technology to all the 78 of them at
\nthe  earliest  only  by July 2001, the question\t is  whether
\nthese  78 coke\/coal based industries which are\tcontinuously
\nusing  coke\/coal  can be allowed to pollute the air  in\t and
\naround\tthe  Taj Trapezium and also whether they are  to  be
\nallowed\t such a long period upto July 2001.  We cannot\tlose
\nsight  of the fact that GAIL has completed its obligation to
\nbe  ready, even by September, 1998.  No doubt, even now,  as
\nstated by counsel, these 78 industries are prepared to stand
\nby the undertaking given by them to to this Court to receive
\nnatural\t gas.\tIn our view, having regard to the fact\tthat
\nthe  conversion\t of all these 78 cupola based industries  is
\nlikely\tto  be not completed till July, 2001 – it will be  a
\nmatter\tof  grave  concern if the  atmospheric\tpollution(as
\nnoted  in  the\tNeeri and Dr.  Varadarajan reports  and\t our
\nearlier\t orders)  is allowed to continue.  Question  is\t not
\nstrictly  whether  the 78 industries have or have not  acted
\nbonafide  in  making some efforts for conversion to  natural
\ngas but assuming they have taken some steps, the question is
\nwhether\t the  danger  to the environment  does\tnot  require
\nurgent action.\tThe data already collected shows high levels
\nof  pollution in Agra in this area affecting the environment
\nin the TTZ area.\n<\/p>\n
      In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is
\nno other way to deal with the situation than to apply clause
\n(5)  of\t the  order of this Court dated 30.12.1996  set\t out
\nabove, strictly to these 78 cupola based industries.  We are
\nconscious  that any order to stop supply of coke\/coal to the
\n78 coke\/coal based iron foundries will result in the closing
\ndown  of these 78 industries for some time, before they\t are
\nable  to  switch on to natural gas.  Obviously, the  closure
\nwill  have  not be permanent one but of a temporary  nature.
\nThere will be no difficulty in permitting them to re-open as
\nsoon as they have the cupola conversion technology installed
\nin   their  respective\tindustries.    We  are,\t  therefore,
\ncompelled  to put clause (5) of the order of this Court into
\nfull  effect  in  respect  of  these  78  industries  w.e.f.
\n15.9.1999.  In the result, we direct as follows:- (1) Out of
\n168,  53 iron foundries which have not agreed to accept\t gas
\nhave  to  be closed forthwith, if not already closed as\t per
\norders\tof  this  Court dated 30.12.1996  unless  they\thave
\nshifted.   The\tDistrict  Magistrate and  Superintendent  of
\nPolice,\t Agra shall take action accordingly.  (2)(i) Out  of
\n115  which have opted and entered into agreements with GAIL,
\n37  are\t non-cupola based and among the 8 have converted  to
\nnatural\t gas while in respect of the remaining 29 non-cupola
\nindustries.   Clause  (5) of the order of this\tCourt  dated
\n30.12.96  shall\t come into operation w.e.f.  15.9.1999,\t for
\nthey  have no excuse for not accepting the natural gas\tfrom
\nGAIL.  The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police,
\nAgra  will  take  steps to close down  these  industries  by
\n15.9.1999.   (ii)  However, as and when these 29  non-cupola
\nindustries  take steps to receive gas, they shall be allowed
\nto  function.  (3)(i) In respect of the remaining 78,  which
\nare cupola based, in view of the reasons given above, clause
\n(5) of the order dated 30.12.96 of this Court will come into
\noperation w.e.f.  15.9.1999.  That will mean that in respect
\nof   these  78\tiron   founding\t industries,  the   District
\nMagistrate, Agra and the Superintendent of Police, Agra will
\nhave  to  see  to it that no coal\/coke is supplied  to\tthem
\nafter 15.9.1999.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) Out of the 78 cupola based iron foundries, as and
\nwhen  any  of them gets converted to natural gas  and  takes
\nsteps  to  receive  gas from GAIL, they will be\t allowed  to
\nfunction.   We\tdispose\t of  the IA  in\t respect  of  Zone-I
\naccordingly.  Copy to be communicated to District Magistrate
\nand Superintendent of Police, Agra.\n<\/p>\n
      GAIL  and Sri Krishan Mahajan are requested to furnish
\na  list of the respective industries to the above  officials
\nin a week.  ZONE II & ZONE III<\/p>\n
      So far as Zone II and Zone III are concerned, a number
\nof  affidavits\thave been filed by the GAIL and one  by\t the
\nGovernment  of India.  As the matter is to be adjourned,  we
\ndo  not\t propose to give a detailed order.   Sri  V.R.Reddy,
\nlearned\t senior\t counsel for GAIL has placed before  us\t the
\ncorrespondence\tand  contended that, by its  affidavit,\t the
\nUnion of India appears to have in principle, accepted that a
\npipeline  can  be  allowed to be laid along the\t Old  Yamuna
\nBridge\tbut  that  the Union of India want to  put  GAIL  on
\nnotice\tthat,  inasmuch as the old Bridge may require to  be
\ndismantled  by\tGovernment,  – GAIL must be prepared  to  go
\nahead with laying down the pipeline with that possibility of
\nthe  Old Bridge being dismantled.  Sri Reddy however  points
\nout  that  there are reports of some technical experts\tthat
\nthe  old  Bridge need not be dismantled in the near  future.
\nHe contends that, unfortunately, the Government of India has
\nnot  so far applied its mind to these reports and  therefore
\nit has to take a final decision in the matter of dismantling
\nof  the Old Yamuna Bridge, after considering these  reports.
\nLearned\t senior counsel contends that appropriate directions
\nbe  given to the Union of India in this behalf.\t In view  of
\nthe  above  contention,\t we  direct the Union  of  India  to
\nexamine\t the  expert  reports given in connection  with\t the
\ndismantling  of the old Bridge and take a final decision  in
\nregard\tto  the same and give its response to this Court  by
\nway  of affidavit so that GAIL can take a decision as to the
\nlaying of its pipeline for supply of natural gas to Zones II
\nand III.  Response of Union of India to be filed within four
\nweeks.\t Thus, we dispose of this I.A.\tso far as Zone I  is
\nconcerned.  The I.A.  now remains pending in respect of Zone
\nII and III.  List I.A.\tafter four weeks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 Author: M Rao Bench: S S Ahmad, M Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA VERSUS Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/08\/1999 BENCH: S S Ahmad, M Jagannadha Rao JUDGMENT: D E R M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-237769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2658,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999"},"wordCount":2658,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999","name":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-19T15:59:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-vs-union-of-india-others-on-31-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs Vs. Union Of India & Others on 31 August, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=237769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}