M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and ors. Pays/Territoire Inde Type de cour Autres Date Oct 10, 2007 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Supreme Court of India Siège de la cour New Delhi Juge Sinha, S.B.Kapadia, S.H.Jain, D.K. Langue Anglais Sujet Questions juridiques, Environnement gén. Mot clé Patrimoine culturel Planification territoriale Résumé A project known as 'Taj Heritage Corridor Project' was initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. One of the main purpose for which the same was undertaken was to divert the River Yamuna and to reclaim 75 acres of land between Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal and use the reclaimed land for constructing food plazas, shops and amusement activities. The said activities on the part of the Government of Uttar Pradesh was brought to the notice of this Court. An exception thereto was taken. A detailed inquiry was directed to be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Upon consideration of the report submitted before it by CBI, this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 directed it to register a First Information Report and make further investigation in accordance with law. CBI investigated into the matter, including the roles played by Ms. Mayawati, the then Chief Minister, and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddiqui, the then Minister for Environment, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Investigations were also carried out against some officers. Amicus Curiae has submited that the task of protection of cultural heritage having been undertaken by this Court and keeping in view the provisions of Article 49 of the Constitution of India, the Court should interfere in the matter and set aside the order of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh refusing to accord sanction to prosecute Ms. Mayawati and Mr. Naseemuddin Siddqui. Whether this Bench should consider the correctness of an order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is the prime question involved in this application. The Court is of the view that its jurisdiction to issue a writ of continuous mandamus is only to see that proper investigation is carried out. Once the court satisfies itself that a proper investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take over the functions of the Magistrate or pass any order which would interfere with its judicial functions. There are well-defined and well-demarcated functions in the field of crime detect ion and their subsequent adjudication by the court. It is one tiling to say that this Court will not refrain from exercising its jurisdiction from issuing any direction for protection of cultural heritage and the ecology and environment; but then in discharge of the said duty, this Court should not take upon itself the task of determining the guilt or otherwise of an individual involved in the criminal proceeding. It should not embark upon an enquiry in regard to the allegations of criminal misconduct so as to form an opinion one way or the other so as to prima facie determine guilt of a person or otherwise. Accordingly the Court has directed CBI to place the evidence/material collected by the investigating team along with the report of the SP as required under Section 173(2) CrPC before the court/Special Judge concerned who will decide the matter in accordance with law. Texte intégral COU-156165.pdf Site web www.nlsenlaw.org