Supreme Court of India
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 826
- Decided
- 14 July 2025
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Court held that the appellants suppressed material facts by not disclosing parallel proceedings, and therefore the civil appeals are dismissed with costs.
Summary
The appellants filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking to quash a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) and consent for a petrol pump at Khasra No. 109/1/2, alleging violations of environmental and municipal regulations. While the NGT dismissed the application, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court and, during the pendency of the appeal, also filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the same NOC on different grounds. The respondents contended that the appellants deliberately failed to disclose the parallel High Court proceedings, rendering their NGT application non‑bonafide and aimed at furthering a business interest. The Court examined the pleadings before both forums and found substantial overlap, concluding that the appellants suppressed material facts and pursued parallel litigation without informing the Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals and imposed costs on the appellants, while noting that the pending writ petition would be decided separately.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants' failure to disclose parallel proceedings before the High Court renders their NGT application non‑bonafide.
- Whether the existence of overlapping challenges to the same NOC constitutes abuse of process warranting dismissal of the civil appeals.
- Whether the Supreme Court can impose costs for non‑disclosure and parallel litigation.
- Whether the NGT has jurisdiction to entertain challenges based on the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and municipal law provisions.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the objections raised by the respondents about the bonafides of the appellants as also the allegations that the appellants suppressed the initiation of parallel proceedings before the High Court. Headnotes† Practice and proceedings – Non- disclosure – Application by the appellant for restraining respondents from setting up a petrol pump, as also challenged the NOC issued by the Collector – Application as also review petition dismissed by the tribunal – Appeal before this Court –
Subjects
Non-disclosure of parallel proceedingsBonafides of appellantsScope of proceedingsOverlap and parallel challengesPetrol pumpSubserve business interestMunicipal lawsCost
Judgment
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 593 : 2025 INSC 826
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors.
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3263-3264 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and
Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the objections raised by the respondents
about the bonafides of the appellants as also the allegations that
the appellants suppressed the initiation of parallel proceedings
before the High Court.
Headnotes†
Practice and Procedure – Parallel proceedings – Non-
disclosure – Application by the appellant for restraining
respondents from setting up a petrol pump, as also challenged
the NOC issued by the Collector – Application as also review
petition dismissed by the tribunal – Appeal before this Court –
Objections by the respondents that the appellants have
suppressed the initiation of parallel proceedings before the
High Court – Scope of proceedings before the tribunal and
the High Court – Determination:
Held: Having considered the grounds and relief sought in the original
application filed before the tribunal and having contrasted it with
the grounds and prayers 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 – Appellants suppressed the necessary facts and
there is reason to believe that the proceedings before tribunal were
initiated to subserve business interest of the appellants – Even
assuming that the scope and ambit of challenge is distinct, which
they are not, the appellants could have done and infact should
have informed this Court about initiation of the fresh proceeding
challenging the NOC before the High Court, particularly when the
civil appeals are pending consideration – Appeals dismissed with
costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the appellants. [Paras 19, 21]
* Author
594 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010; Petroleum Rules, 2002; M.P.
Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Water (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act, 1981.
List of Keywords
Non-disclosure of parallel proceedings; Bonafides of appellants;
Scope of proceedings; Overlap and parallel challenges; Petrol
pump; Subserve business interest; Municipal laws; Cost.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 3263-3264
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 and 17.10.2024
of the National Green Tribunal, Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal in
OA No. 73 of 2024 and RA No. 8 of 2024, respectively
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Abhijit Banerjee, Ms. Sreepriya K.
Advs. for the Respondents:
V.v.m.b.n.s. Pattabhiram, D.A.G., Pinaki Mishra, Anoop George
Chaudhari, June Chaudhari, Sr. Advs., Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Ms. Alpana Sharma, Raghav Sharma, Salvador Santosh Rebello,
Jaskirat Pal Singh, Pranjal Pandey, Ms. Kritika, Parimal Bhatia,
K. R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma A S, Ms. Namrata Saraogi,
Vikas Sharma, Vipin Nair, Mohd Aman Alam, Aditya Narendranath,
Ms. M.b.ramya, Ms. Deeksha Gupta.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 595
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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 ensure earnest and bonafide actions
before the tribunals for protecting environment and ecology.
2. Short Facts and Prayer before the Tribunal: The short facts leading to
filing of the present appeals are that the three appellants approached
the National Green Tribunal1 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.
1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT’.
596 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 597
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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.”
598 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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.
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, 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,
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 599
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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.
4.2.6. The residential colonies as mentioned in the petition
are located on the west side of the petrol pump.
600 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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:-
No Main Points As per Revenue Record
1 Petrol Pump is proposed on The Petrol Pump is located
Khasra No. 109/1/2 located on part of Khasra no. 109/1/2
at Village-Intekhedi Road, and on Khasra no. 109/1/2
Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal. Vi l l a g e - I n t e k h e d i R o a d
Tehsil-Huzur, District-Bhopal
of area 0.19 hectares, which
is registered for commercial
purpose in the name of Aman
Ahmed Khan S/o Jameel
Ahmed Khan.
2 The residential colonies The residential colonies
respectively Anjani Nandan respectively Anjani Nandan
Dham and Ramnagar are Dham and Ramnagar
established for residential established at Khasra No.
purpose at Khasra No. 108, 108, 109/2 and 109/1/1 are
109/2 and 109/1/1 near the Unauthorised residential
site (Petrol Pump), colonies.
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 601
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
3 Government Higher No Hospital or Government/
Secondary School is located private school located within
50 meters from the petrol a periphery of 50 meters from
pump and a hospital is also the petrol pump and there is
located nearby. no residential activity within a
periphery of 50 meters from
the fuel section of the petrol
pump is operated.
4 Information of the designated The designated residential
residential area, school and area, school and hospital are
hospital located around the not within the periphery of 50
said petrol pump. meters from Petrol Pump.
The traditional settlement/
population of Village-Intkhedi
Road is 600 meters away
from the under construction
Petrol Pump.
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.
602 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 603
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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 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
604 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 605
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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.”
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
606 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 607
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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 application was
confined only to “Siting Criteria of Retail Outlets”. 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:
“(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
608 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 609
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
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 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.
610 [2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(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.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Non-disclosure of parallel proceedings"Sign in to search