- (1.) Pursuant to this Court's order dated 14-3-1996, [Ed.: Details of order dated 14-3-1996 given in M.C. Mehta (Taj Trapezium Matter) v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 353 at para 19] Mr C.P. Jain, Chief Manager (Safety and Environment Protection), Indian Oil Corporation has filed an affidavit. In our order dated 14-3-1996 we noticed the statement of Mr C.P. Jain to the effect that the Public Investment Board had given its clearance to the proposal for construction of Hydrocracking unit in Mathura Refinery on 14-3-1996.
(2.) Mr Jain has in the affidavit under consideration stated that after the clearance from the Public Investment Board, the proposal shall have to be approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. It is stated that once the approval from the Administrative Ministry is received, the actual work of procurement of machinery and construction will start and the project is likely to be completed within a period of 42 months. We are constrained to say that despite continuous monitoring by this Court even the paper work has not as yet been completed.
(3.) This Court on 20-1-1995 observed as under: "... Mr Mathur, in Para 7 of his affidavit has given details of the further procedure to be followed for the final completion of the project. According to the affidavit the Committee of the Public Investment Board has to sanction expenditure for the preparation of detail feasibility report. We are informed that the Secretary, Expenditure is the Chairman of the Public Investment Board. We request the Secretary, Public Investment Board to have this matter examined by the Board expeditiously keeping in view the importance of the project. We do not wish to fix any period within which the Board should finalise the matter but we trust and hope that the matter shall be finalised at an early stage.";