Arun Kumar Sharma vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 826
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3263-3264 OF 2025

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Access to justice is inextricably connected to maintaining
integrity in the process of invocation and conduct of remedial
proceedings before Courts and Tribunals. We have entertained
these civil appeals after sufficient warning that, in the event we
accept the objections of the respondent about the deliberate non-
disclosure of parallel proceedings initiated before the High Court,
and that the original application before the Tribunal is not
bonafide as it is intended to subserve personal interest of appellant
no. 3, conducting rival business, these civil appeals will be
dismissed with exemplary costs. This approach is necessary to
Signature Not Verified
ensure earnest and bonafide actions before the tribunals for
Digitally signed by
KAPIL TANDON
Date: 2025.07.14
15:53:20 IST
Reason:
protecting environment and ecology.
1


2. Short Facts and Prayer before the Tribunal: The short facts
leading to filing of the present appeals are that the three appellants
1
approached the National Green Tribunal invoking Section 14 of
the NGT Act for restraining respondents 4, 5 and 6 from setting up
a Petrol Pump at Khasra No. 109/1/2 (S) situated on SH 10 Bhopal
to Berasia road, Village- Intkhedi Road, Tehsil-Huzur, District-
Bhopal. The prayers made in the original application are as follows:
“ 7. PRAYER
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as explained
herein above, it is most respectfully prayed that Hon’ble Tribunal
may graciously be pleased to allow the present Application and
7.1 Quash the Consent letter dated 19.07.2023; and
7.2 Quash the No-Objection Letter dated 07.02.2024 issued by
Respondent No. 3; and
7.3 Direct the Respondents not to establish petrol pump within
the proximity of designated residential area.
7.4 Allow the Applicant to add, delete, modify, substitute, amend
the present Application and submit additional documents, if
occasion so arises; and
7.5 Cost of the matter may also be awarded;
7.6 Till the pendency of the present matter ad interim relief by
way of restraining the Respondent No. 4 & 5 to stop construction
of petrol pump activities may also be granted in the interest of
justice.
7.7 Any other relief, which Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and
proper may also be awarded in favour of the Applicant as
against the Respondents. ”
3. It is clear from the above referred prayers that the appellants
have specifically challenged, (i) the consent to operate dated

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT’.
2


19.07.2023 issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
Bhopal under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
and (ii) the NOC dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Collector enabling
installation of the petrol pump retail outlet as per the application
made by the contesting respondents.
4. Apart from other grounds, the decision of District Collector
dated 07.02.2024 is challenged on the ground that he has not
applied his mind while issuing the said NOC and that it is contrary
to the Petroleum Rules, 2002. The relevant grounds of challenge
are as follows:
“4.17 However, the Respondent No. 3, without looking into
various aspects, issued No-Objection Certificate to the
Respondent no. 4 & 5 vide NOC dated 07.02.2024.

4.18. It is submitted that the Applicant vide Notice dated
24.12.2023 & 13.02.2024 to the Respondents requested to stay
the illegal construction by the Respondent No. 4 & 5 for
establishment of petrol pump at the Said Land, citing the various
environmental issues.
4.19. In the letter dated 24.12.2023 & 13.02.2024, the Applicant
raised the issues that the Respondent No. 3 is required to issue
No-Objection Certificate in accordance with the Rule 144 of the
Petroleum Rules, 2002, in the prescribed proforma. The Rule 144
prescribes the District Authority, i.e. the Respondent No. 3 to
issue license if there is no objections to the Applicant receiving a
license for the site proposed. Further, the District Authority is
also required to protect the interest of public, especially facility
like schools, hospitals or proximity to places.
4.20. Now, the Respondent No. 4 & 5 are establishing petrol
pump at the Said Land in sheer violation of Hon'ble NGT Orders,
CPCB Guidelines and PESO Guidelines.
3


4.21. That establishment of petrol pump in a residential area
poses multifaceted risks and hazards, both to the environment
and to the health and safety of the residents. The CPCB
Guidelines clearly stipulate the minimum distance requirements
for setting up petrol pumps from residential areas, school,
hospitals, and other sensitive establishments. It is evident that
the Said Land fails to comply with these crucial safety
regulations, thereby jeopardizing the lives and well-being of the
residents.
4.22. Furthermore, the establishment of a petrol pump in close
proximity to designated residential area raises serious concerns
regarding air, water and noise pollution. The operation of fuel
dispensing units, vehicular traffic, and other associated
activities are known to emit harmful pollutants, including volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter, and noise, which
can have detrimental effects on both the environment and public
health.
4.23. Additionally, CPCB guidelines and NGT Orders, which aim
to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts associated with
fuel retailing activities. Failure to adhere to these guidelines not
only undermines the regulatory framework put in place to
safeguard the environment but also sets a dangerous precedent
for füture development projects.
4.24. Considering the gravity of the situation and the potential
ramifications for the environment and public health, by way of
the present Application, the Applicant urge the Hon'ble National
Green Tribunal to intervene expeditiously and cancel the NOC
Issued by the Respondent No. 3 and Consent letter issued by
Respondent No. 1 to prevent the establishment of the
Respondent no. 4 & 5 petrol pump in the designated residential
area and school. In the present Application, the Applicant is only
bringing the environmental issues for adjudication before the
Hon'ble NGT. For other procedural and substantial illegalities
being committed by the Respondents, the Applicant reserves its
right to approach appropriate forum, at appropriate stage.”

5. While issuing notice on 21.03.2024, the NGT constituted a
Joint Committee and directed it to submit a factual report within
six weeks.
4


6. Various permissions already obtained by the respondents:
Pending enquiry and report from the Joint Committee, the
contesting respondents 4, 5 and 6 filed a detailed counter affidavit
as per which the following permissions have already been
obtained.
(i) Firstly, on 30.04.2024, the Ministry of Petroleum and
Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) granted NOC in
favour of Reliance BP Mobility Ltd.
(ii) Secondly, on 26.04.2023, the CEO of Janpad Panchayat
Phanda, Bhopal, M.P. issued NOC
(iii) Thirdly, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation
also issued NOC on 26.05.2023
(iv) Fourthly, on 26.04.2023, Madhya Pradesh Electricity
Board also issued NOC
(v) Fifthly, on 10.04.2023, the Industrial Department also
issued its NOC
(vi) Sixthly, on 19.07.2023, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution
Control Board issued its consent to operate under the
Water and Air Act, and
(vii) Finally, on 07.02.2024, the Collector also issued the NOC
in favour of the contested respondent.

7. It is an admitted fact that all the above referred NOCs as well
as the consent to operate were issued prior to the filing of the
original application before the NGT on 15.03.2024.
8. Findings of the Joint Committee constituted by NGT: The Joint

Committee submitted its report on 09.07.2024. The procedure
adopted for conducting the enquiry, the field observations,
5


information provided by the Revenue Department and the
Pollution Control Board, along with the findings, are extracted
herein below for ready reference.
“ 4. Field Observations: -
4.1. Joint committee on dated 07/06/2024 conducted a site visit
of Khasra No. 109/1/20 (S) stiuated on SH 10 Bhopal to Berasia
road, Village- Intkhedi Road, Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal.
Apart from the Joint Committee members following officers
namely Ms. Prakamya Tiwari, AE, RO, MPPCB, Bhopal, Shri
Kanak Meena, Deputy Controller, PESO, Bhopal and Shri
Kailash Sharwa, Patwari, Halka-Intkhedi Sadak, Gram
Panchayat-Intkhedi Sadak were also present during the site
visit. The Advocate of petitioner Shri Prateek Jain was informed
by the nodal department about the visit of committee and he was
present during the visit. Also, the representative of petrol pump
Shri Aman Ahmed Khan was present. The Geographical
locations, photographs and visual observations were recorded
during inspection. The Photographs and Google Maps are
enclosed as Annexure I.
4.2. During inspection, Joint Committee visited the site of Petrol
Pump mentioned in the petition. The details observed during the
inspection are mentioned as under: -
4.2.1. The site is located on SH 10, Intkhedi Road, Village-
Intkhedi Road, Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal. The geographical
location of the site is latitude 23°22'20.95" N and longitude
77º23'58.41 E".
4.2.2. The SH 10 road is situated on the East of the petrol pump.
The New Government Higher Secondary School is located at a
distance of approximately 120 meters away to the South-West
of the petrol pump.
4.2.3. On north side of the petrol pump there are some
commercial establishments located at a distance of
approximately 30 meters away, the north of the petrol pump.
4.2.4. On south side of the petrol pump there are some
commercial buildings, incomplete building structures named as
Maruti Udyog, one cement shop, steel TMT bar Shop as per the
sign boards placed on the shops, which are located at a distance
of approximately 30 meters away.
4.2.5. The primary development work for the establishment of
Petrol Pump was found in progress.
6


4.2.6. The residential colonies as mentioned in the petition are
located on the west side of the petrol pump.
4.2.7. The distance from the dispensing unit to the boundary of
the Petrol pump towards residential colonies on west side is
approx. 38 meters.
4.2.8. During visit of the Joint Committee, no residential houses
were found constructed in the above residential colonies and no
habitation were observed.
4.2.9. No high tension line was found passing through the petrol
pump site.
5. Information provided by the Revenue Department,
Tehsil-Huzur, Bhopal
5.1. Letter vide dated 19/06/2024 was issued by MPPCB
(Nodal Department) to SDM, Tehsil-Huzur to provide the
information of permissions / locations of Petrol Pump, School,
Hospital and Residential colony within 50 meter distance from
the Petrol Pump as per revenue records. The copy is enclosed as
Annexure Il.
5.2. SDM, Tehsil-Huzur, Bhopal vide letter dated 03/07/2024
provided the information. The copy of the letter is enclosed as
Annexure III. The main points of the letter are mentioned as
under:-

7

6. Information of MPPCB:-
6.1 As per the application submitted by Project proponent of
Petrol Pump for establishing a Petrol Pump, MPPCB vide outward
No:24612 dated 19/07/2023 issued Consent to Establish under
Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981. The copy is enclosed as Annexure IV
6.2 The Consent to Establish was issued with the conditions that
new petrol pump should be at least 50 meters away from school,
hospital and residential areas. If Petrol pump located within 50
meters radius of any school, hospital and residential complex it
must obey provisions of Petroleum Rules, 2002, administered by
Petroleum and Explosive safety organization. No high-tension
wire should be passed through outlet.
7. Findings of the Joint Committee:-
7.1 The committee finds that the residential colonies near the
petrol pump as mentioned in the petition are unauthorized
residential colonies and as per the record of Revenue department
there is no designated residential colony within 50 meters
distance from dispensing unit of petrol pump.
8


7.2 It is also found that there are no schools or hospitals exist
within 50 meters distance from the petrol pump.
7.3 The nearest habitation of people around the Village is 600
meters away from the Petrol Pump that is under construction at
Village- Intkhedi road.
7.4 Committee has referred the Section - H of Central Pollution
Control Board Guidelines (CPCB) for setting of new Petrol Pump
dated 07/01/2020. The copy is enclosed as Annexure V. The
section - H is reproduced as under:
“Section - H : In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new Retail
Outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters
(from fill point/ dispensing units/ vent pipe whichever is nearest)
from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential
areas designated as per local laws. In case of constraints in
providing 50 meters distance, the retail outlet shall implement
additional safety measures as prescribed by PESO. In no case
the distance between new retail outlet from schools, hospitals
(10 beds and above) and residential area designated as per local
laws shall be less than 30 meters. No high tension line shall
pass over the retail outlet.
7.5 It is humbly submitted that Prior Approval granted to M/s
Reliance B.P. Mobility, by the O/o JCCE, PESO, Bhopal, in Form-
XIV of Petroleum Rules, 2002, Consent to Establish granted by
MP Pollution Control Board, Bhopal and No Objection Certificate
granted by the District Collector, Bhopal are issued as per the
prevailing Rules and Regulations. It is also submitted that above
said Approval/Consent/No-objection Certificates are issued in
conformity to the Siting Criteria prescribed in the guidelines of
CPCB and no valid establishment such as Residential colony,
School, Hospital was found constructed within the periphery of
50 meters from the new Petroleum Retail Outlet, of M/s Reliance
B. P. Mobility, proposed on part of Khasra No. 109 and Khasra
No.109/1/2, Village-Intekhedi Road Tehsil-Huzur, District-
Bhopal.”

9. Judgment of the NGT: By the order impugned before us the

NGT dismissed the original application. Before the NGT, apart from
questioning the findings of the Joint Committee, the appellants
challenged the grant of NOC by the District Collector dated
07.02.2024 on multiple grounds. The appellants have also raised
9


additional grounds which were considered and dismissed by the
NGT order impugned before us. The relevant portion of the findings
of the NGT are as follows:
“14. The main ground for challenge to the NOC dated
07.02.2024 is that it is in violation of Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules
2002, which issue cannot be raised before this Hon'ble Tribunal
as per Section 14 read with Schedule 1 of the NGT Act The
environmental and safety concerns raised are safeguarded by
the conditions imposed in the PESO approval dated 22.05.2023
and Consent to Operate dated 19.07.2023 and therefore the
application made is clearly frivolous and in fact premature. The
said approval is testimony to the fact that the same has been
granted pursuant to the Safety and Test Certificate as required
under Rules 130 and 126 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 issued
by the competent person approved by CCE, Nagpur. Thus, all the
safety measures as prescribed by PESO have been adhered to.
15. Notices were also sent to respondent no. 6, who in
compliance of the order filed a reply, which is on record. Learned
Counsel for the respondent no. 6, Mr. Rohit Sharma has argued
that the Petroleum Rules are not covered under the scheduled Act
of National Green Tribunal and the allegations regarding blatant
violation of CPCB Guidelines remained unsubstantiated even as
per the observations furnished by the Joint Committee Members
comprising of Members from District Administration, Bhopal,
PESO & Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The
Answering Respondent No.6 is the rightful owner of a land
forming part of Khasa No. 109/1/2 where a Petrol Pump
belonging to Reliance BP Mobility is being established after
procuring all the valid permissions from the competent
departments.
16. It is further argued that the google map, which has been
placed on record by the petitioner shows incorrect measurement
and the joint committee has submitted the exact map, which
clarifies that the distance between the retail outlet of the
answering respondent no. 6 and the nearest government school
is approximately 135 meters. Further contention of the
respondents are that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 are not falling
within the schedule of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and
any objection with respect to The Petroleum Rules, 2002 cannot
be entertained under the NGT Act, 2010.
17. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the objection
against the findings of the joint inspection report and submitted
that Collector has wrongly issued NOC or the diagram prepared
10


by the joint committee is not as per guidelines for setting up new
petrol pumps or that the committee is not as per guidelines for
setting up new petrol pumps or that the committee has
misinterpreted the guidelines.
18. It is further argued that the entries in plot no. 109/2 and 108
are transferred of land to private owners which discloses that it
is for the residential purposes. The applicant has further
challenged the authority of the revenue officials to convert the
residential land into the commercial plots and that the provisions
contained in Section 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959 and Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat
(Development of Colonies) Rule, 2014 has not been properly
followed. Rejoinder to reply filed by the respondent no. 6 and
rejoinder reply filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have also
been filed.
19. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the State
Mr. Prashant M. Harne and Mr. Rohit Sharma learned counsel
for the respondent have submitted that the crux of the matter is
distance from the hospital, private school etc. and it is clearly
mentioned that no hospital or school is located within 50 meters
from the periphery of the petrol pump and there is no residential
activity within the periphery of 50 meters from the section/ petrol
pump. The findings of the committee 7.3 says that the nearest
habitation, pupil around the village is 600 meters away from the
petrol pump.
20. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
perusal of the land records reveals that several persons have
purchased the land and their names are mutated. The revenue
entries shows the mutation of the year 2023-24. The contention
of the respondents / project proponent and the State counsel are
that the application was entertained in the year 2022 dated
14.04.2022 and after comprehensive scrutiny and
documentation the M/s Reliance B. P. Mobility granted the
dealership vide intend letter dated 30.11.2022 and consent to
establish and NOC was issued accordingly.
21. We are of the view that the matter with regard to change of
user of land or validity of the colony or construction of the houses
are within the domain of revenue authorities. Only thing which
is required to be considered is compliance of the guidelines
issued by the CPCB for establishment of petrol pump and this
application has been filed on the ground of distance which was
found to be not in violation of any guidelines and thus this
application is not maintainable and not tenable.
22. In view of the above facts, argument and records submitted
by the parties, this application is devoid of any merit and
deserves to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.”
11



10. Order in the review petition: The review petition filed by the
appellants on the ground that the Joint Committee has not given
sufficient notice and opportunity was considered and dismissed by
the NGT on 17.10.2024.
11. Civil Appeals before this Court and Preliminary objections of
the respondents: The appellants filed the present civil appeals
challenging the judgment of NGT dated 09.08.2024 and also the
order in review dated 17.10.2024. Pursuant to issuance of notice,
when the respondents appeared and raised objections about the
bonafides of the appellants and also alleged that the appellants
have suppressed the initiation of parallel proceedings before the
High Court, this Court directed the appellants to respond to the
said allegations and also cautioned that in the event respondent’s
contentions were accepted by this Court then the civil appeals will
be dismissed with costs.
12. The appellants responded to the preliminary objections by
filing their reply. In the said reply, the appellants have, for the first
time, brought to the notice of this Court the filing of writ petition
no. 41030 of 2024 by appellant no. 3. The appellants sought to
justify their action of not informing this Court about filing of the
12


subsequent writ petition by contending that the scope of
proceedings arising out of original application before NGT on the
one hand and proceedings arising out of writ petition before High
Court are distinct and also that the said fact could not be
mentioned in the civil appeals as the writ petition was filed after
the institution of the civil appeals.
13. Analysis: The appellants want this Court to believe that the

scope of the original application before the NGT is confined only to
violation of “Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets” as mentioned in the
office memorandum dated 07.01.2020 issued by the Central
Pollution Control Board. It is then submitted that the subsequently
filed writ petition is confined to challenging the NOC dated
07.02.2024 on the ground that it is violative of the M.P. Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 as the contesting
respondents did not take the necessary permission from the
Director, Town and Country Planning for constructing the Petrol
Pump. This justification, as formulated in the affidavit in reply is
as follows:
“11. That on 18.12.2024 that is during the pendency of the
present Civil Appeal a Writ Petition No. 41030 of 2024 (Ram
Kumar Singh Vs Collector Bhopal & Ors) was preferred by the
Appellant No.3 on a completely different ground and Question of
Law as, Petrol Pump was being illegally constructed without
'Development Permissions' as per the due process as envisaged
13


under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam
1973 and as the Respondent No. 4 & 5 required to take
'Development Permission' from the Director Town and Country
Planning for starting construction of the Petrol Pump.”

14. 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. The following references clearly
demonstrate the fact.
15. At the outset, it is not correct to say that the original
“Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets”.
application was confined only to
We have already reproduced the grounds taken in the original
application and it is apparent that while challenging the NOC dated
07.02.2024, the appellants have specifically pleaded that the NOC
is contrary to Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. In the original
application, the appellants have alleged that the district collector
has not applied his mind while granting the NOC. Further, in the
civil appeals filed before this Court, they specifically raised
questions of law and impugned the NOC dated 07.02.2024 on
various other grounds, which are as follows:
14


“(X). That however, without inquiring into the issues raised by
the Appellants and in ignorance of the orders / directions given
by the Hon'ble Tribunal is various cases prohibiting setting up of
petrol pump outlets near the residential areas, Respondent no. 3
issued a No Objection Certificate dated 07.02.2024 to
Respondent no. 4 and 5.”
…….
K. BECAUSE impugned orders and judgments are liable to be
set aside for the reason that the proposed retail outlet is being
constructed without complying with the terms and conditions laid
down in the NOC dated 07.02.2024 granted by Respondent no.
3.
L. BECAUSE the Respondent No. 2 failed to ensure the
implementation of additional safety measures as prescribed by
the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) in
cases where the stipulated distance requirement is not met.”

16. The appellants have specifically challenged the grant of NOC
dated 07.02.2024 on the ground that the respondents have not
obtained development permission from the town and country
planning authority. The relevant portion of the ground is as
follows:
“N. BECAUSE the Joint Committee report is silent about the
illegal construction being carried out by the Respondent on the
proposed site of Petrol Pump, without obtaining Development
Permission from the Town and Country Planning, which is
mandated in the Collector's NOC dated 07.02.2024.”

17. Having extracted hereinabove the specific ground in the civil
appeals challenging the NOC on the ground that it is granted
without obtaining the development permission from the town and
country planning authority, which requirement arises under the
15


M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, the submission
that the proceedings before NGT were confined only to “Siting
Criteria of Retail Outlets” is false and is hereby rejected.
18. We will now refer to the grounds taken in the writ petition to
examine whether the said writ petition is really confined to
challenging the NOC dated 07.02.2024 on the grounds that the
said respondents have not obtained the development permission
under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The
following grounds in the writ petition evidence that the writ petition
is not confined to that ground:
“5.7 It is submitted that before setting up the petrol pump,
the Respondent No. 4 & 5 had also granted Prior Approval from
the Respondent No. 3 i.e. PESO vide Prior Approval dated
22.05.2023, which prescribes for safety as well as other norms.
Clause 5 of the prior approval clearly prescribes that necessary
approval including NOC from Respondent No. 1 under Rule 144
of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 is required to be obtain.”
5.10 On receipt of the letter dated 30.01.2024, the
Respondent No. 1 without considering the actual and factual
aspect of the Said Land issued the NOC dated 07.02.2024
('Impugned NOC) to the Respondent No. 4 & 5 for establishment
of petrol pump on the Side Land with various conditions
attached.
5.12 It is submitted that the Impugned NOC was also not
issued in accordance with the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which is
blatant ignorance and violation of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.”

19. In view of the specific challenge to the NOC dated 07.02.2024
on grounds that it is violative of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh
16


Adhiniyam, 1973 in the civil appeal, which arises out of
proceedings before the NGT, and also challenge to the NOC on
grounds that it is violative of Petroleum Rules, which challenge is
also taken in the writ petition filed before the High Court, we are of
the opinion that the appellants have initiated identical and parallel
proceedings. Having extracted the grounds raised in the original
application before the NGT, as well as in the writ petition filed
subsequently, when the present civil appeals were pending it is
clearly discernible from the pleadings that there is an overlap and
parallel challenges to the same NOC dated 07.02.2024. In the
original application, though the primary challenge is based on the
2020 Guidelines issued by CPCB, the appellants have raised
additional grounds with respect to Petroleum Rules and of violation
of municipal norms in the civil appeals. In the writ petition before
the High Court, though the appellants have taken the stand that
their grievance is limited only to violation of provisions of the
municipal laws, the Adhiniyam, 1973, grounds relating to
Petroleum Rules, 2002, which have anyway been raised before the
NGT are also taken. Even assuming that the scope and ambit of
challenge is distinct, which we have demonstrated that they are
not, the appellants should have taken the permission of this Court
17


for initiating the writ petition. The minimum that the appellants
could have done and infact 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, particularly when the civil
appeals are pending consideration.
20. In the context of the above-referred facts, the submission of
the contesting respondents that this litigation is not bonafide and
that it is to subserve the personal interest of appellant no. 3,
running a parallel business, cannot be brushed aside easily.
21. Conclusion and directions : In view of the above, 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:
(a) 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. In this view of the
matter, 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.
18


(b) 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.
………………………………....J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

………………………………....J.
[JOYMALYA BAGCHI]

NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025

19