M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 22 November 2018

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 1177

M. C. MEHTA

v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985)

In RE : SEALING ISSUE

(Report Nos. 129 and 131 submitted by Monitoring Committee)

NOVEMBER 22, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER ANDDEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Urban Development:

Sealing of unauthorized/illegal dairy – By Milch TaxInspector, on the direction of Director (Veterinary Services) of EastDelhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) – Seal broken by a Memberof Parliament (MP) – FIR – Premises re-sealed – MonitoringCommittee (appointed by Supreme Court) submitted its Report No.129 before Supreme Court stating the above facts – Notice issuedto the MP – In the meantime Monitoring Committee filed ReportNo. 131 stating that an article in a leading national daily mentionedthat soon after hearing on 3[rd] October, 2018, the MP alleged thatthe Monitoring Committee was running a sealing racket inconnivance with corrupt officers – Held: Monitoring Committeehad no role to play in the matter of sealing the premises in question– However, the MP did take law into his own hands by breaking theseal – It is left to the better judgment of the political party, to whichhe belongs, to take action against him – Allegations made by theMP against the Monitoring Committee shows his total lack of respectfor any rule of law – However, the Court does not intend to proceedagainst the MP for the reckless statement – Therefore, theproceedings against the MP and the Reports of the MonitoringCommittee are closed.

Closing the Reports of the Monitoring Committee, theCourt HELD: 1. The Monitoring Committee had no role to playin the matter of sealing the premises which was in violation ofthe provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Thesealing and de-sealing of the premises had nothing to do with theMonitoring Committee which was not consulted in the matterand no direction had been given by the Monitoring Committee

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato seal the premises. The sealing of the premises was anindependent act carried out by the Veterinary ServicesDepartment of the EDMC and had no concern with the MonitoringCommittee. [Paras 9 and 10][1181-C-E]

2.1 Notwithstanding this, there is no doubt that the MemberBof Parliament did take the law into his own hands and broke theseal or tampered with it. Shri Manoj Tiwari is an elected MP andhopefully a responsible citizen of Delhi. Instead of pacifying themob and requiring the mob to act in accordance with law, ShriManoj Tiwari acted irresponsibly by taking the law into his ownhands. The consequence of such a behaviour can be devastatingCin a given situation. It is left to the better judgment of the politicalparty, to which he belongs, to take action against the MP, if soadvised. [Paras 11, 12 and 13][1181-E-G; 1182-B]

2.2 The misplaced bravado of the MP and his chestthumping immediately after the hearing on 3[rd] October, 2018 andDmaking serious but frivolous allegations against the MonitoringCommittee appointed by this Court is a clear indication of howlow he can stoop, and displays his total lack of respect for anyrule of law. It seems that he is, in a sense, a rebel without a cause.The court does not intend to proceed against him for the recklessEstatement attributed to him as publicized by the MediaDepartment of the political party. Pumping for apparentlymisplaced political propaganda has no place in our courts; thisunhealthy practice needs to be strongly deprecated. Theproceedings against the MP are closed. Report Nos. 129 and131 are also closed. [Paras 15 and 16][1182-D-G]F

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 399 : [2006]2 SCR 264 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2006] 2 SCR 264referred toPara 1GCIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)No. 4677 of 1985

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate (A.C.) A. D. N. Rao, (A.C.)HMs. Anitha Shenoy, (A.C.) Advs.

Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Ajay Kr. Singh, Neeraj, Satyendra Kr.Srivastav, Ramesh Tiwari, Vinay Kumar, Atulesh Kumar, R. Bala, SachinSharma, Pranay Ranjan, Raj Bahadur Yadav, D. L. Chidanand, RiteshKumar, Ms. Suhasini Sen, G. S. Makker, B. V. Balram Das, A. K. Kaul,Raj Bahadur, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Vijay Panjwani, S. Wasim A. Qadri,Zaid Ali Subzposh, Praveen Swarup, Gaurang Kanth, Sayan Ray, SoumoPalit, Ms. Eshita Baruah, B. C. Santosh Kumar, Ajay Bansal, Ms. VeenaBansal, Gaurav Yadav, Ms. Garima Prashad, Ms. Anil Katiyar, D. N.Goburdhun, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Ms. Pallavi Chopra, Arvind KumarSharma, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Advocates for the appearing parties.

Petitioner-In-Person

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR,J. 1. The Monitoring Committeeappointed by this Court by judgment and order dated 16[th] February, 2006[1]submitted Report No. 129 dated18[th] September, 2018. It was stated inthe Report that the Monitoring Committee had received informationthatthe seal put by the Veterinary Services Department of the East DelhiMunicipal Corporation (EDMC)on a property in village Gokalpur,Shahadra, North Zone, Delhi had been broken/tampered with on16.9.2018.

2. The Report of the Monitoring Committee contains the followinginformation:

“On the directions of Director (VS), EDMC to take action againstthe illegal dairies at Gokalpur village, MTI was directed tothoroughly check the area and take sealing action against anyillegal dairy running at Gokalpur. MTI inspected the area andfound one illegal dairy being run at H. No. 46, Kh. 299, VillageGokalpur near PanchayatGhar, Delhi-94 by Sh. Prem Singh s/oSh. Mahaveer Singh. As police programme has already beenbooked for taking action in the area, therefore, the above illegaldairy was sealed by MTI and his staff on 14.09.2018. The reportof sealing alongwith necessary photographs were sent to Director(VS), EDMC and sealing action was entered in the sealing Registerat Sr. No. 123.

Yesterday on 16.09.2018 (Sunday), Digital Media reports showedthat above seal has been broken by Sh. Manoj Tiwari, Hon’ble 1 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 399

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AM.P. Similar reports were also printed in the print media andHon’ble M.P. was shown in the action of breaking the seal of thepremises.

First Information Report of the incident has been lodged byDD(VS) at PS-Gokalpuri against all responsible persons. FurtherBDeputy Director (Veterinary Services), Shahdara (North) Zonehas fixed a programme for re-sealing the above mentionedpremises at 2.30 p.m. on 17.09.2018 and SHO, Gokalpuri hasbeen requested to provide sufficient police force.”

3. A perusal of the Monitoring Committee’s Report indicates thatCon 14[th] September, 2018 an illegal dairy being run at H. No. 46 on Kh.299 in village Gokalpur owned by Shri Prem Singh was sealed by theMilch Tax Inspector on the directions of the Director (VeterinaryServices) of the EDMC. The seal was apparently broken or tamperedwith by Shri Manoj Tiwari, an elected Member of Parliament (MP) on16[th] September, 2018 as reported in the digital media and the print media.D

4. The Report further indicates that when the breaking/tamperingof the seal came to the knowledge of the Veterinary Service Department,a First Information was lodged and the premises were re-sealed on 17[th]September, 2018.

E5. On a reading of the Report, we got the impression that thesealing was carried out in consultation with the Monitoring Committeeappointed by this Court in terms of the judgment and order dated 16[th]February, 2006. It appeared to us that Shri Manoj Tiwari had violatedorders of this Court and interfered in the administration of justice whichamounted to contempt of court. Accordingly on 19[th] September, 2018Fwe issued notice to Shri Manoj Tiwari directing his personal appearanceon25[th]September, 2018.Onthat date and subsequently on1[st]October, 2018and 12[th] October, 2018,Shri Manoj Tiwari was present in Court. Hefiled a reply and the Report was taken up for consideration.We finallyheard the matter on 30[th] October, 2018.

E

G

G6. In the meanwhile, on 8[th] October, 2018 the MonitoringCommittee filedReport No. 131 in this Court in which it annexed anarticlefrom a leading national daily of 4[th] October, 2018. The article mentionedthat soon after the hearing on 3[rd] October, 2018Shri Manoj Tiwari allegedthat the Monitoring Committee is running a sealing racket in connivancewith corrupt officers.H

7. Report No. 131 also placed on record a document issued bythe Media Department of a national political party to which the MPbelongs. The document adverted to the statement reportedly made byShriManoj Tiwari wherein he had alleged that the Monitoring Committee isrunning a racket of sealing in connivance with corrupt officers.

8. When we finally took up the matter for hearing on 30[th] October,2018Shri Manoj Tiwari was present in Court along with his learned counseland submissions were made on his behalf as well as by the learnedAmicus Curiae on behalf of the Monitoring Committee.

9. It appears from the submissions made before us that in fact theMonitoring Committee had no role to play in the matter of sealing thepremises of Shri Prem Singh who had violated the provisions of theDelhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. During the course of submissions,we were informed that Shri Prem Singh had paid a fine and penalty formisuse of the premises by running an unlicensed dairy and the premisesde-sealed.

10. The sealing and de-sealing of Shri Prem Singh’s premises hadnothing to do with the Monitoring Committee which was not consulted inthe matter and no direction had been given by the Monitoring Committeeto seal Shri Prem Singh’s premises. The sealing of the premises was anindependent act carried out by the Veterinary Services Department ofthe EDMC and had no concern with the Monitoring Committee.

11. Notwithstanding this, there is no doubt (and this is the admittedposition) that Shri Manoj Tiwari did take the law into his own hands andbroke the seal or tampered with it on the premises of Shri Prem Singh onor about 16[th] September, 2018.

12. We are extremely pained by the machismo and brazen mannerin which Shri Manoj Tiwari took the law into his own hands and broke ortampered with the seal on Shri Prem Singh’s premises. We are painedbecause Shri Manoj Tiwari is an elected MP and hopefully a responsiblecitizen of Delhi. Should an elected representative of the people defy therule of law in this manner?

13. We asked learned counsel representing Shri Manoj Tiwari thereason why he had taken the law into his own hands. The reply given tous, on instructions, was rather shocking. We were told that Shri ManojTiwari was a popular leader of a political party and on seeing him in thatarea a mob of about 1500 people had gathered and goaded him to break A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe seal that had been “illegally” put on the premises of Shri Prem Singh.As a result of the pressure exerted upon him by the mob, he brokeortampered with the seal. What shocked us was the rationale given byShri Manoj Tiwari which suggested to us quite explicitly that instead ofpacifying the mob and requiring the mob to act in accordance with law,Shri Manoj Tiwari acted irresponsibly by taking the law into his ownBhands. The consequence of such a behaviour can be devastating in agiven situation. For example, if a mob goads anelected MP to commit afar more serious offence, would it mean that the elected representativewould act on the instructions of the mob and commit the offence? Alarge number of such situations can ariseon a day to day basis and it isCdisconcerting to note that anelected member of a responsible politicalparty can succumb to pressure from a mob rather than require the mobto follow the rule of law. In such a situation, the elected representativeceases to be a leader and becomes a blind follower. We need not sayanything more on this subject but leave it to the better judgment of thepolitical party to take action against Shri Manoj Tiwari, if so advised.D

14. The misplaced bravado of Shri Manoj Tiwari and his chestthumping immediately after the hearing on 3[rd] October, 2018 and makingserious but frivolous allegations against the Monitoring Committeeappointed by this Court is a clear indication of how low Shri ManojTiwari can stoop and displayshis total lack of respect for any rule of law.EIt seems that he is, in a sense, a rebel without a cause.

15. The shoulders of this Court and the Monitoring Committeeare broad enoughto take criticismin its stride and therefore we do notintend to proceed against Shri Manoj Tiwari for the reckless statementattributed to him as publicized by the Media Department of the politicalFparty. We are of the view that pumping for apparently misplaced politicalpropaganda has no place in our courts; this unhealthy practice needs tobe strongly deprecated.We only hope, as mentioned above, that bettersense prevails and undemocratic tendencies are curbed by the concernedpolitical party.

G

16. The proceedings against Shri Manoj Tiwari are closed. ReportNos. 129 and 131 are also closed.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Reports closed and directions issued.

H