Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1997 DIGILAW 137 (SC)

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

1997-01-24

A.M.AHMADI, G.B.PATTANAIK, SUJATA V.MANOHAR

body1997
JUDGMENT : 1. The Twenty-Fifth Bi-monthly Report is signed by the Chairman and two Members, the third Member and the Convenor Secretary have not signed the Report. We are told that they have signed dissenting note but they are not on the file. Let the dissenting note also be placed on record. 2. The further affidavit filed on behalf of the Government discloses the increase in lead free petrol outlets. The learned ASG states that efforts are on to further increase the outlets particularly in the Delhi and Bombay Sectors. He states that in the Chennai and Calcutta Sectors the demand for lead free petrol is limited and would verify from the registration of new cars if it is on account of people going in for diesel-run cars rather than purchasing petrol - run cars. He may have the matter examined at an early date. So far as the progress report on CNG activities in Delhi is concerned we find that there is a dispensing retail outlet at Bhatia Service Station which could service about 200 cars but the February 1996 Report shows that it has serviced nil. On inquiry, the learned ASG states that that is because outlet has not been functioning for want of permission from NDMC in regard to putting up of shed, etc. The learned counsel for the NDMC is not present and, therefore, it is not possible for us to ascertain why the required permission has not been granted thus far. We would like NDMC to clarify this position by filing an affidavit within the next two weeks. Similar is the position in regard to Gymkhana Service Station. The NDMC should also clarify the position in regard to this Service Station as well. 3. There is also a grievance in regard to on-line Compressor which requires about 32 KW power for running the motor but the supply is actually inadequate and consequently the voltage remains low. Mr. Maheshwari, the learned counsel for DESU, states that he would inquire into the matter and inform the Court of the actual position by the next date of hearing. 4. The MCD will also explain the difficulty pointed out in para 7.2 of the affidavit. Mr. Reddy seeks time to file the affidavit in regard to conversion. He may do so within that time. The MCD may also file the affidavit within two weeks. 5. List the matter thereafter.