Supreme Court: In a civil appeal filed against the judgment passed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the order in review, wherein the NGT dismissed the original application of the appellants invoking Section 14 of the NGT Act for restraining respondents from setting up a petrol pump on SH 10 Bhopal to Berasia Road, the Division Bench of PS Narasimha* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ. imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellants for the deliberate non-disclosure of parallel proceedings before the NGT and the High Court, challenging the same NOC for the installation of a petrol pump retail outlet. The Court found that the appellants had suppressed material facts by initiating identical and parallel proceedings, which was deemed as a violation of the procedural integrity expected from litigants.
Background
The three appellants approached the National Green Tribunal (‘NGT’) invoking Section 14 of the NGT Act, seeking to restrain respondents 4, 5, and 6 from setting up a petrol pump at Khasra situated on SH 10 Bhopal to Berasia Road, Village- Intkhedi Road, Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal.
The appellants have specifically challenged the following:
- The Consent to Operate 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.
- The No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) issued by the District Collector, enabling the installation of the petrol pump retail outlet as per the application made by the contesting respondents.
-
In addition to the above, the decision of the District Collector, dated 07-02-2024, was challenged on the ground that the Collector did not apply his mind while issuing the NOC, and that the NOC is contrary to the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
Joint Committee and Proceedings
On 21-03-2024, the NGT issued a notice and constituted a Joint Committee, directing it to submit a factual report within six weeks.
Permissions Already Obtained
Pending the enquiry and report from the Joint Committee, respondents 4, 5, and 6 filed a detailed counter-affidavit, stating that the following permissions have already been obtained. It is an admitted fact that all the NOCs and the Consent to Operate mentioned above were issued prior to the filing of the original application before the NGT on 15-03-2024.
Joint Committee’s Report
The Joint Committee submitted its report on 09-07-2024, which included the procedure adopted for the enquiry, field observations, information provided by the Revenue Department and the Pollution Control Board, along with its findings.
Judgment of the NGT
In the impugned order, the NGT dismissed the original application. The appellants, apart from questioning the findings of the Joint Committee, challenged the grant of the NOC by the District Collector on multiple grounds. The appellants also raised additional grounds, which were considered and dismissed by the NGT in the impugned order.
Order in the Review Petition
The review petition filed by the appellants, on the grounds that the Joint Committee had not given sufficient notice and opportunity, was considered and dismissed by the NGT on 17-10-2024.
Therefore, the appellants filed the present civil appeals challenging the NGT judgment and the order in the review.
Analysis and Decision
Remarking that access to justice is inextricably linked to maintaining integrity in the process of invoking and conducting remedial proceedings before Courts and Tribunals, the Court entertained these civil appeals after issuing sufficient warnings. The Court stated that, should it accept the objections of the respondent regarding the deliberate non-disclosure of parallel proceedings initiated before the High Court, and if it found that the original application before the Tribunal was not bona fide, but instead intended to serve the personal interests of appellant , who was conducting a rival business, the civil appeals would be dismissed with exemplary costs. The Court emphasised that this approach was crucial to ensuring earnest and bona fide actions before tribunals, particularly in matters concerning the protection of the environment and ecology.
The Court observed that the appellants sought for the Court to believe that the scope of the original application before the NGT was confined solely to the violation of the “Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets” as outlined in the office memorandum dated 07-01-2020 issued by the Central Pollution Control Board. It was further submitted that the subsequently filed writ petition was limited to challenging the NOC on the ground that it violated the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (‘Adhiniyam, 1973’), as the contesting respondents failed to obtain the necessary permission from the Director, Town and Country Planning for constructing the petrol pump.
The Court examined the matter in detail. After considering the grounds of challenge, the prayers in the original application, and the submissions recorded by the NGT, and contrasting them with the grounds and prayers in the writ petition before the High Court, the Court opined that this contention was an afterthought and also lacked candour.
At the outset, the Court noted that it was incorrect to assert that the original application was confined solely to the “Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets.” As already mentioned, the grounds taken in the original application clearly show that while challenging the NOC, the appellants specifically pleaded that the NOC was contrary to Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002. In the original application, the appellants had alleged that the District Collector had not applied his mind while granting the NOC. Furthermore, in the civil appeals filed before the Court, the appellants specifically raised questions of law and impugned the NOC on various other grounds.
The Court highlighted that the appellants had specifically challenged the grant of the NOC on the ground that the respondents had failed to obtain the necessary development permission from the Town and Country Planning Authority. Having extracted the specific ground in the civil appeals, which challenged the NOC on the basis that it was granted without obtaining the required development permission as mandated under the Adhiniyam, 1973, the Court found the submission that the proceedings before the NGT were confined only to the “Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets” to be false. This submission was therefore rejected.
The Court then referred to the grounds taken in the writ petition to examine whether the said writ petition was truly confined to challenging the NOC on the grounds that the respondents had failed to obtain the development permission under the Adhiniyam, 1973.
The Court, in view of the specific challenge to the NOC , on the grounds of its violation of the Adhiniyam, 1973 in the civil appeal arising from the proceedings before the NGT, and the challenge to the NOC on the grounds of its violation of the Petroleum Rules, which was also raised in the writ petition before the High Court, held that the appellants had initiated identical and parallel proceedings.
After examining the grounds raised in the original application before the NGT and the writ petition filed subsequently, the Court said that it was evident that the two proceedings overlapped and challenged the same NOC. The primary challenge in the NGT application was based on the 2020 Guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, but the appellants also raised additional grounds regarding the Petroleum Rules and violation of municipal norms in the civil appeals. In the High Court writ petition, the appellants claimed that their grievance was limited to violations of the municipal laws under the Adhiniyam, 1973, but they also raised issues related to the Petroleum Rules, 2002, which had already been raised in the NGT proceedings.
The Court stated that even if the scope and ambit of the challenges in the two proceedings were distinct (which the Court demonstrated they were not), the appellants should have sought permission from the Court before initiating the writ petition. At the very least, the appellants should have informed the Court about the fresh proceedings challenging the NOC before the High Court, particularly since the civil appeals were already pending consideration.
The Court further emphasised that the contention put forth by the respondents asserting that the litigation was not bona fide and was instead aimed at furthering the personal business interests of appellant 3, who was engaged in a competing business, could not be dismissed lightly.
Having considered the grounds and relief sought in the original application before the NGT and contrasted them with the grounds and prayers in the writ petition, the Court concluded:
(a) The appellants had suppressed necessary facts, and there was sufficient reason to believe that the NGT proceedings were initiated to serve the business interests of appellant 3. As a result, the civil appeals were dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 50,000 payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks from the date of the order.
(b) The Court clarified that it had not examined the issue regarding the violation of Adhiniyam, 1973 raised in the writ petition pending before the High Court. The High Court would hear and dispose of the writ petition on its own merits, without being influenced by the observations made in the present case.
[Arun Kumar v. State of MP, Civil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025, decided on 14-07-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice PS Narasimha
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, AOR Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Pandey, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Adv. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mrs. June Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mrs. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.