Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Petrol Pump NOC | Finds Environmental Plea Filed To Serve Rival Business Interest | Imposes ₹50,000 Costs For Suppressing Parallel High Court Proceedings
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has dismissed the civil appeals challenging the National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of an environmental application, concluding that the appellants suppressed material facts and initiated parallel proceedings with an ulterior motive. The Court found the proceedings to be non-bona fide and imposed costs of ₹50,000, payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks. The Court explicitly refrained from adjudicating the issues raised in the related writ petition pending before the High Court, directing it to be decided independently on its merits.
The dispute arose from an original application filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, by three appellants seeking to restrain the establishment of a petrol pump at Khasra No. 109/1/2(S), situated on State Highway 10 between Bhopal and Berasia, Village Intkhedi Road, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal. The reliefs sought included quashing of a “Consent to Establish” dated 19.07.2023 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board under the Water and Air Acts, and a “No Objection Certificate” dated 07.02.2024 issued by the District Collector.
The appellants alleged that the NOC violated Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and that it was granted without due application of mind, disregarding Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) guidelines. They claimed the proposed petrol pump was within dangerous proximity to schools, hospitals, and residential areas, posing environmental and health hazards.
The Tribunal, while issuing notice, constituted a Joint Committee to submit a factual report. Respondents filed counter affidavits detailing permissions obtained, including NOCs from multiple authorities such as PESO, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Janpad Panchayat Phanda, MP Road Development Corporation, and the Industrial Department. All permissions had been granted prior to the NGT application dated 15.03.2024.
The Joint Committee conducted a site inspection on 07.06.2024. Its findings recorded that the petrol pump site was situated over 50 meters from any school, hospital, or designated residential area. Notably, residential colonies cited by the appellants—Anjani Nandan Dham and Ramnagar—were confirmed by revenue records to be unauthorized. The nearest habitation was found to be 600 meters away, and no high-tension line traversed the site.
Additionally, the MP Pollution Control Board, via its Consent to Establish dated 19.07.2023, had stipulated that the site must maintain a minimum distance of 50 meters from residential zones, schools, and hospitals. The CPCB guidelines also permitted relaxation up to 30 meters with additional safety measures, none of which were found to be violated.
The NGT, in its judgment dated 09.08.2024, dismissed the application as premature and without merit, stating that environmental and safety concerns were addressed by statutory conditions imposed by PESO and MPPCB. It held that Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules was not within the NGT’s jurisdiction under its Schedule I framework and that the allegations of guideline violations were unsubstantiated. A subsequent review petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on 17.10.2024.
Thereafter, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging both the NGT judgment and review dismissal. During proceedings, the respondents raised objections, asserting that appellant no. 3 was pursuing identical relief in a parallel writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, thereby suppressing material facts. The Supreme Court issued cautionary directions to the appellants to address these allegations.
In their reply, the appellants acknowledged for the first time that a writ petition—W.P. No. 41030 of 2024—had been filed during the pendency of the civil appeals. They attempted to differentiate the writ petition as relating solely to violations under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and not environmental issues under CPCB guidelines.
However, upon examining the grounds of the original application, civil appeal, and writ petition, the Supreme Court found overlapping contentions. Specifically, it noted that the challenge to the NOC dated 07.02.2024 on grounds of non-compliance with the Adhiniyam and Petroleum Rules appeared in all three forums. The Court also highlighted pleadings in the civil appeal which explicitly alleged that the NOC was granted without obtaining development permission from the town and country planning authorities.
Given the overlap in reliefs and grounds, the Court held that the appellants had “initiated identical and parallel proceedings” and failed to seek prior leave or disclose the existence of the High Court litigation, thereby undermining judicial process integrity.
The Bench recorded: “We have examined the matter in detail. Having considered grounds of challenge, the prayers in the original application and submissions as recorded by the NGT and having contrasted them with the grounds and prayers in the writ petition before the High Court, we are of the opinion that this contention is an afterthought and also lacks candour.”
It further stated: “The submission that the proceedings before NGT were confined only to ‘Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets’ is false and is hereby rejected.”’
On examining the writ petition contentions, the Court recorded: “The writ petition is not confined to that ground,” referring to the argument that it only challenged the NOC under town planning norms. Instead, the Court noted overlapping assertions: “Grounds relating to Petroleum Rules, 2002, which have anyway been raised before the NGT are also taken.”
The Court held that even assuming arguendo that the proceedings were distinct, “the appellants should have taken the permission of this Court for initiating the writ petition.” Instead, “the minimum that the appellants could have done and in fact should have done is to inform this Court about initiation of the fresh proceeding challenging the NOC dated 07.02.2024 before the High Court.”
On the nature of the litigation, the Court stated: “In the context of the above-referred facts, the submission of the contesting respondents that this litigation is not bona fide and that it is to subserve the personal interest of appellant no. 3, running a parallel business, cannot be brushed aside easily.”
The Supreme Court issued the following directives:
“Having considered the grounds and relief sought in the original application filed before the NGT and having contrasted it with the grounds and prayers in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the appellants have suppressed the necessary facts and there is reason to believe that the proceedings before NGT were initiated to subserve business interest of appellant no. 3.”
Accordingly, it ordered: “The civil appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks from today.”
The Bench also clarified: “We also clarify that we have not examined the issue relating to violation of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 raised in the writ petition pending before the High Court. Said writ petition will be heard and disposed of on its own merits and without being influenced by observations made by this Court in the present case.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant(s): Mrs. V. Mohana, Senior Advocate; Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Sreepriya K, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Advocate; Mr. Pranjal Pandey, Advocate; Ms. Kritika, Advocate; Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate; Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Advocate; Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Advocate; Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Senior Advocate; Mrs. June Chaudhari, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vipin Nair, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Advocate; Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Advocate; Mrs. Deeksha Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 826
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
