- (1.) On the basis of the decision rendered by this Court on 30-12-1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 13381 of 1984 titled M. C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 2 SCC 353, various I.As. were filed before this Court either for removal of the industries which are polluting the atmosphere in the vicinity of Taj Mahal or for removal of the encroachment because appropriate steps were not taken by the concerned authorities. For this purpose, this Court had appointed a Monitoring Committee to report to this Court for the action being taken by the Agra Mission Management Board and other authorities. On 25-3-2003 on behalf of the Monitoring Committee a report was submitted before this Court wherein it was prayed that respondents including the State of U.P. be directed to immediately stop the diversion of the river Yamuna and any further action on the bed of the river in proximity of the International Heritage Monuments till the Union Ministry clears such projects upon an environment impact assessment report. On the said application this Court issued notice on 27-3-2003. At that time, learned counsel for the Monitoring Committee as well as Mr. M. C. Mehta insisted that authorities are proceeding with the construction without appropriate clearance. Still, however, we thought that as the State Government and the Central Government are involved in the matter, they would proceed in accordance with law. Therefore, stay order as prayed for was not granted. Subsequently, on 8-4-2003 along with other matters this I.A. was also considered. On 9-4-2003 on the request of the learned counsel for the Union of India for studying the detailed project report and for filing necessary affidavit, matter was adjourned for three weeks. At the relevant time counsel for the Union of India did not know whether officers of the U.P. Government were proceeding with construction without clearance from the Central Government.
(2.) Thereafter, on 1-5-2003, the Court perused the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union Government and recorded as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the affidavit dated 29-4-2003 of Dr. (Mrs.) Sunita V. Auluck, Addl. Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi (tendered in Court) the area which is sought to be reclaimed is divided into four parts as under :- Component A :- On the right bank between upstream end of Taj Mahal to upstream end of Fort (near Railway Bridge). Component B :- On left bank between Ram Bagh and opposite Agra Fort and upstream of Rambagh. Component C :- On the right bank upstream of Agra Fort up to the point opposite of Ram Bagh. Component D :- On the left bank from the point opposite the upstream of Agra Fort to near Mehtab Bagh and right bank down stream of Taj. For Component A, learned counsel appearing for the State Government states that at present no work of reclamation of land is going on. For Component B, on the left bank between Ram Bagh and opposite Agra Fort, it is stated that reclamation of 25 acres of land out of 40 acres of land is over. With regard to Components C and D, no reclamation work is done. He further submits that henceforth the State Government would not carry out any further reclamation work except filling of sand. For the work done in the area of Components A and B, it would be open to the State Government to have temporary embankment by using the stones and clay. However, this would be subject to further directions and clearance by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Meantime, Central Water Research Station, Khadakwasla would assess the behaviour of the river and impact of reclamation of river bed on the monuments in Agra and its protection thereof. The entire cost of this study would be borne by the Central Government."
(3.) We directed the Central Water Power Research Station, Khadakwasla to assess the behaviour of the river and impact of reclamation on river bed on the monuments in Agra and its protection thereof as we were under the impression that the project was carried out as per the direction of the Central Government. Hence, we, directed the Central Government to bear the costs of the Project. From the said affidavit it was apparent that the construction work commenced without clearance and this Court was not informed about it at the relevant time.;