National Green Tribunal cannot delegate its adjudicatory functions to expert committees or bypass principles of natural justice.

The 1st Respondent challenged the establishment of a petrol pump in Haridwar before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), alleging violations of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) siting guidelines dated 07.01.2020, specifically the 50-meter radial distance requirement from schools and residential areas.

The NGT, via order dated 01.02.2021, kept the No Objection Certificates (NOCs) in abeyance and directed a Joint Committee to take a "final decision" on the matter.

Subsequently, in an execution petition, the NGT issued an ex-parte order on 11.11.2022, without notice to the appellants, directing the District Magistrate to ensure compliance with a specific committee report (Annexure-7) that suggested the outlet be disallowed.

The appellants (IOCL and the fuel outlet allottees) challenged these orders, contending that the site was in a designated commercial area according to the Haridwar Master Plan 2025 and that all statutory clearances were obtained.

1. Whether the NGT can delegate its essential adjudicatory functions to an Expert Committee.

2. Whether the NGT violated the principles of natural justice by passing orders without notice to the affected parties or providing an opportunity to object to committee reports.

3. Whether the proposed retail outlet violated the CPCB siting criteria regarding distance from residential areas and schools.

Sections 14, 15, and 19(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, noting that the NGT is a judicial body bound by the principles of natural justice.

Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Union of India (2021) and Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat (2023), which established that expert committees are meant to assist the tribunal, but the NGT cannot abdicate its adjudicatory duty to such committees.

Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey (2023) to reiterate that parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to object to committee reports before directions are issued.

The Supreme Court observed that the NGT’s first order was a "gross" abdication of power because it entrusted a committee to make the "final decision" rather than adjudicating the dispute itself.

The Court found the second order even more problematic as it was passed on the first date of admission without notice to the appellants, violating Section 19(1) of the NGT Act.

On the merits of the siting criteria, the Court noted that the CPCB guidelines require a 50-meter distance from "residential areas designated as per local laws".

Evidence showed the site was marked as "commercial" in the Haridwar Master Plan 2025, and the only nearby residence belonged to the husbands of the appellants.

The "play school" mentioned by the respondent was non-functional.

The Court concluded that the NGT blindly adopted a committee's vague conclusion without independent factual verification or legal reasoning.

The Court held that the NGT cannot delegate its judicial functions to administrative committees and must strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice.

The Court directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar, to consider the matter afresh and permit the establishment of the petrol pump if it complies with extant statutory laws and clearances.

The Court also questioned the locus standi and bona fides of the 1st Respondent, characterizing him as a "busy body" who stalled a public utility for six years.