Beyond Environmental Concerns: Supreme Court Highlights Procedural Misconduct in Petrol Pump Case by Justice P. S. Narasimha and J. bagchi

This is a decision of the Supreme Court of India passed justly on the 14 th May 2025 by judges, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, a timely reminder about the value of ensuring probity in proceedings. The Court rejected the civil appeals against the setting up of a petrol pump because of the non disclosure of parallel proceedings and non bona fides on part of the appellants.

The Origins of the Controversy: Revolting against a Petrol Pump in Bhopal

The case was based on an application made by 3 appellants before the National green tribunal (NGT) under Section 14 of the Green tribunal Act. Their main purpose was to keep the respondents 4,5 and 6 out of establishing a petrol pump on Khasra No. 109/1/2 (S), SH 10, Bhopal to Berasia road, Village-Intkhedi Road, Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal. The two appellants wanted to quash the July 19, 2023 letter of the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and the February 7, 2024 letter issued by the Collector, both of which gave authorisation to install the petrol pump under the title of Consent to Operate and No-Objection Letter, respectively. They also asked that a directive be given to the respondents to avoid setting up of the petrol pump within the precinct of a given residential area.

One of the grounds to challenge the NOC issued by the Collector dated February 7, 2024, was the claim that the NOC did not apply the mind and that it was not in accordance with Petroleum Rule, rule 144 which dated 2002. In granting such license the appellants argued that the District Authority is obligated to safeguard the interest of the people, particularly those facilities such as schools, hospitals or even residential neighborhoods. Moreover, they claimed that the set-up of the petrol pump destroyed the Honble NGT Orders, CPCB Guidelines and PESO Guidelines especially in terms of distance where the minimum distance unable to achieve between residential premises, school, and hospital. They underlined the environmental and health hazards caused by petrol pumps located in residential places, such as air, water and noise pollution.

In the Places and Committee Findings of the Joint Committee

The competing respondents had prior to the NGT proceeding engineered a number of approvals. These were NOC of the Ministry of Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) at April 30, 2024, NOC of the CEO of Janpad Panchayat Phanda, Bhopal, M.P. at April 26, 2023, NOC of the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation at May 26, 2023, NOC of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board at April 26, 2023 and NOC of the Industrial Department at April 10, Importantly, the consent to operate under the Water and Air Act given by Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board was on July 19 th 2023 and the NOC was issued by the Collector on February 7 th 2024. These are all the approvals given before the original application was filed with NGT on March 15 2024.

As soon as the NGT took up the application it made a Joint Committee to present a factual report. Based on the site visit which the Joint Committee conducted on June 7, 2024, and meeting with the Revenue Department and Pollution Control Board, the report was provided by the Joint Committee on July 9, 2024. It was noted by the committee that the petrol pump that was proposed was also located on SH 10 and that a New Government Higher Secondary School was about 120 meters towards the South-West. Although there were some commercial buildings nearby, the residential colonies that have been highlighted in the petition were on the west side and the dispensing unit was at about 38 meters away off their limit. Markedly, no residential house or habitation was constructed in these colonies at the time of visit according to the findings of the committee. All the information provided by the Revenue Department stated that the residential colonies were illegal and there were no such structure as a Hospital or a Government/Private School in a radius of 50 meters near to the petrol pump. The closest to the traditional settlement of Village-Intkhedi Road was at 600 meter. The MPPCB had made their consent to Establish with the condition that petrol pump should be not less than 50 meters far from schools, hospitals as well as residential areas and in case with 50 meters it must directly meet the Petroleum Rules, 2002. Joint Committee deduced that the residential colonies were irregular, there were no school or hospitals within 50 meters, and the approvals which were procured by M/s Reliance B.P. Mobility were within the parameters of Siting Criteria which was as per the guidelines provided by CPCB.

The Decision by NGT and the Appeals Prosecuted Thereafter

The NGT rejected the first application supporting the determination of the Joint Committee. The NGT observed that dealing with the case on the issue of the breach of the Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 was outside the scope of the NGT according to Section 14 read with Schedule 1 of the NGT Act. It also concluded that environmental and safety issues had been covered through terms made in PESO approval and Consent of Operation. The NGT specifically directed that the issue of change of user of land or validity of colonies is within the revenue authority and did not deal with those aspects since it was to deal with matters, whether there is compliance with the guidelines issued by CPCB concerning the distance between establishment of petrol pumps that it was not found to be in contravention. The appellants were also denied the review petition.

The Position of Supreme Court regarding Parallel Proceedings and Bona Fides

The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court in civil appeals, against the judgment of NGT and the order of its review. In the process, a vital objection was presented by the respondents, that was, the appellants had interfered with parallel proceedings being initiated at the High Court. The Supreme Court had warned the appellants that in the event that such an argument went in, the appeals would be dismissed with exemplary costs.

In its reply, the appellants revealed, the first time, the existence of Writ Petition No. 41030 of 2024 filed by appellant no. 3. The rationale behind this non disclosure, according to them, was that the jurisdiction of the proceedings by the NGT was limited to Siting Criteria of RetailOutlets under guidelines of the CPCB whereas the writ petition was only the challenge of the NOC over breach of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 regarding development permissions.

But the grounds as well as prayers in the original application before the NGT and the subsequent writ petition were carefully examined by the Supreme Court. The Court considered this defense by the appellants to be rather an “afterthought” and it also lacked candour. It pointed out that in the original application challenged by it before the NGT, it was distinctly alleged that the NOC dated February 7, 2024, was based on Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which was against the law. Moreover, the civil appeals themselves issued their own grounds of setting aside the NOC in the light of not having the so-called Development Permissions as per the requirements of the NOC issued by the Collector also based on the provisions of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The Court further observed that the writ petition though as claimed by the appellants contained protests on the NOC, contained allegation of breaching of the Petroleum rules, 2002.

The Supreme Court was emphatic that the appellants had filed identical and parallel proceedings in terms of having filed overlapping disputes against the same February 7, 2024, NOC. The Court pointed out that despite the scope of challenge being varied (which in the Court view was not the case), the appellants had the duty to seek the permission of the Court or at least make known to the Court of fresh proceedings as it was still busy hearing the civil appeals.

Stricking out with Exemplary Costs

With the holding of the truth back and the parallel proceedings ordered, the Supreme Court decided that the litigation was not in good faith and must have been filed with a view of serving the personal business interest of the appellant no. 3. This meant that civil appeals have been rejected with exempl表ш financials of Rs. 50,000/-, which has to be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association in four weeks. The Court made it clear that its rejection did not go into the matter pertaining to violation of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, argued in the writ petition and the High Court would independently decide and finalise that writ petition and should not be guided by observations of the Supreme Court in this case.