M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITEDversusV. B. R. MENON & OTHERS

                         [2023] 5 S.C.R. 215                               215


           M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED                              A
                                   v.
                   V. B. R. MENON & OTHERS
                    (Civil Appeal No. 421 of 2022)
                          MARCH 14, 2023                                   B
    [SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
       National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30(1)(b), 36 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – s. 2(a),
3(3), 5, 5A – National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures)
                                                                           C
Rules, 2011 – Rule 24 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 – s.25 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 – s. 21 – The Principle Bench of the NGT in the O.A.No.147
of 2016 issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapour
recovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers,
terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in the        D
National Capital Territory of Delhi – Thereafter, respondent no.2-a
resident of Chennai, filed O.A.No.138 of 2020(SZ) raising issue in
regard to the non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS) in
the petroleum outlets by the oil marketing companies (OMCs) – The
NGT, Chennai, inter-alia, directed the Central Pollution Control
                                                                           E
Board (CPCB) as well as the State Pollution Control Boards to issue
directions to make it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE)
and the Consent to Operate(CTO) for new retail petroleum outlets
as well as the existing retail outlets – Issue before the Supreme Court;
whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that it
should in exercise of its powers u/s. 5 of the Act 1986 make obtaining     F
of the CTE and CTO resply mandatory for all the petroleum retail
outlets across the country – Held: All the appellants have installed
VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets – Respondent no.2
had not prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO
mandatory – The fact that CPCB in consultation with Ministry of
                                                                           G
Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines from
time to time for installation of VRS – Directions issued by the NGT,
Chennai in regard to installation of the VRS in the impugned
judgment are not inclined to be disturbed – CPCB directed to ensure
that these directions are scrupulously followed – NGT in its impugned
order had noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green           H
                                    215
216            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     category” and the CTE and CTO was not required – Apprehension
      on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly
      monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT to
      issue directions making obtaining the CTE and CTO mandatory –
      However, it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTO
      mandatory, accordingly directions in this regard are set aside –
B
      Instead, CPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution Control
      Boards to ensure that the guidelines issued by the office memorandum
      dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to – NGT has the power to
      direct the CPCB that it should exercise its power u/s. 5 of the Act
      1986 for the purpose of protecting environment and it was well
C     within its jurisdiction
            Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. It is noticed that all the appellants have installed
      VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. It is also noticed
      that the respondent No. 2 (original applicant) had not prayed before
D     the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory. The prayers
      in O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State of Tamil
      Nadu only. However, the NGT, Chennai by its impugned order
      has directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10
      lakh population to install VRS mechanism which are having
E     turnover of more than 300 KL/Month. This Court also takes
      notice of the fact that the CPCB in consultation with the Ministry
      of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines from
      time to time for installation of VRS (also known as Vapour
      Recovery Device circular). This Court is not inclined to disturb
      the impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regard
F     to installation of the VRS. The CPCB shall ensure that these
      directions are scrupulously followed and complied with. [Para
      45][240-F-H; 241-A]
             2. What is important to note is that in the directions/
      guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016
G     resply the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green”
      which may be exempted from consent management. The Solicitor
      General submitted that it is only after due consideration and
      deliberations that the CPCB issued the said directions. The NGT
      itself in para 66 of its impugned order has noted that the oil
H     industry is characterized as “green category” and the CTE and
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                   217
                    & OTHERS

CTO was not required. It appears that the apprehension on the          A
part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly
monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT to
issue directions to the CPCB & State Pollution Control Boards
to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTE
and CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum
                                                                       B
outlets. The Court is convinced that it is not necessary to make
obtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory. It is also impressed upon
the CPCB to ensure that its guidelines referred to above are
scrupulously followed and once the guidelines are scrupulously
adhered to, no direction to obtain CTE and CTO for starting/
operating a RO is warranted. [Para 46][241-B-D]                        C
      3. In such circumstances, while holding that the National
Green Tribunal has the power to direct the CPCB that it should
exercise its powers under Section 5 of the Act 1986 for the
purpose of protecting the environment, this Court is inclined to
modify the impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai as           D
contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the impugned order
regarding making it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish
and Consent to Operate for new petroleum outlets to be
established in future and even to those which are under the
preparation of establishment and directions that all the existing
Retail Petroleum Outlets irrespective of its turnover to obtain        E
Consent to Operate for the existing outlets within a period of 6
(Six) Months. [Para 47][241-F; 221-D, F]
       4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the Civil
Appeal No. 2039 of 2022 in the following terms:- (a) The CPCB
shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets located in          F
different cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having
turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the VRS
mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its Circular
dated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCB shall ensure
that the directions issued by the NGT as contained in para 69(i)       G
and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. It shall be
the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards to
ensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to the
installation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within the
fresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB.
                                                                       H
218             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           (b) The directions issued by the NGT in the impugned order
      as contained in para 69(iii) and (iv) are set aside. Instead, the
      CPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards
      to ensure that the guidelines issued by it vide the Office
      Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If there
      is breach of any of the guidelines issued by the CPCB vide Office
B
      Memorandum dated 07.01.2020, then the concerned State
      Pollution Control Board shall proceed against the erring outlet
      in accordance with law at the earliest. [Para 48][241-G-H; 242-
      A-D]
              Gyanprakhash @ Pappu Singh v. GoI & Ors. O.A. No.
C             86 of 2019; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
              v. Ankita Sinha 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897 – referred
              to.
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 421 of
      2022.
D
            From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2021 of the National
      Green Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in Original
      Application No. 138 of 2020 (S.Z.).
              With
E             Civil Appeal Nos. 494, 1695, 2039, 1758 and 1912 of 2022
             Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M Nataraj, ASG, Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG,
      Jay Savla, Pinaki Mishra, A Sirajudeen, Sr. Advs., T. Sundar Ramanathan,
      Vivek Pandey, Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan, Ms. Aastha Sardana, Sanjay
      Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Surya Prakash, Arjun Bhatia, Balaji
F     Srinivasan, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Rahul Gupta, Prabhat Chaurasia, K.
      R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Tushar Bhardwaj, Prakhar Agarwal,
      Baijnath Patel, Keshari, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti,
      Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit Dwivedi, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Tanvi
      Anand, Saurabh Mishra, Rakesh Chander, Nirbhay Tewari, Abhishek
      Pandey, Ms. Priya Kaushik, Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma,
G
      Akshay Amritanshu, Ishaan Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Sanjay Kapur,
      Ms. Megha Karnwal, Surya Prakash, Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Akshata Joshi,
      Advs. for the appearing parties.
              Respondent-in-person
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                            219
                    & OTHERS

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                A
      J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
       Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same
and the challenge is also to the self same order passed by the National
Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, (for short, “NGT, Chennai”),
those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of           B
by this common judgment and order.
      2. For the sake of convenience, the Civil Appeal No. 2039 of
2022 is treated as the lead matter.
        3. This appeal is filed by an oil marketing company viz. the Reliance   C
BP Mobility Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and is
directed against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the
NGT, Chennai in the Original Application No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) insofar
as the impugned order directs the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
as well as the State Pollution Control Boards to issue directions to make
it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish (“CTE”) and the Consent to          D
Operate (“CTO”) for new retail petroleum outlets as well as the existing
retail petroleum outlets.
      FACTUAL MATRIX:
       4. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent
                                                                                E
No. 2 herein Mr. V.B.R. Menon, a resident of Chennai, filed the Original
Application No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) before the NGT, Chennai raising the
issue in regard to the non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS)
in the petroleum outlets by the oil marketing companies (OMCs). In the
Original Application No. 138 of 2020, the applicant (respondent No. 2
herein) prayed for the following reliefs:-                                      F
      “Reliefs:
      A. Injunct the respondents 5 to 9 from commissioning and operating
      any new petroleum retail outlets in Tamil Nadu without installing
      Vapour Recovery Systems, Stage 1 and 2 in good working
      condition, pending disposal of this application and                       G

      B. Pass such further order or orders as may fit proper and
      necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case


                                                                                H
220             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            Prayer
             A. Direct the respondent oil marketing companies R-5 to R-9 to
             install and operate Vapour Recovery Systems, Stage 1 and 2, in
             good working condition before opening and commissioning of any
             new petroleum retail outlets in Tamil Nadu.
B            B. Direct the respondent oil marketing companies R-5 to R-9 to
             install and operate Vapour Recovery Systems Stage 1 and 2, in all
             the existing petroleum outlets in Tamil Nadu within a time schedule
             to be prescribed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for each city, town and
             rural area situated in Tamil Nadu.
C            C. Pass such further order or orders as may be fit proper and
             necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus
             render justice.”
             5. The basis for filing of the original application as aforesaid before
      the NGT, Chennai was the order passed by the Principal Bench of the
D     NGT in the Original Application No. 147 of 2016 wherein the Principal
      Bench of the NGT issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapour
      recovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals,
      railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in the National Capital
      Territory of Delhi. Vide order dated 28.09.2018 passed in the O.A. No.
E     147 of 2016 by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, the
      time line of installation of VRD was extended.
            6. The NGT, Chennai adjudicated the O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ)
      and disposed of the same vide order dated 23.12.2021 by issuing the
      following directions:-
F            “69. In the result, this application is disposed of as follows:-
             i. We made it clear that all the Retail Petroleum Outlets which are
             located in cities having more than 10 Lakh population should have
             installed the VRS mechanism which are having turnover of more
             than 300 KL/Month and above, as insisted by the Central Pollution
G            Control Board in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and
             Natural Gas as per circular dated 12.12.2016. If any of the Retail
             Petroleum Outlets had not installed the same within the time frame
             fixed by the CPCB or extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this
             regard, then CPCB is directed to take appropriate action against
             those petroleum outlets/storage depot which have not complied
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                       221
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

    with the same by imposing environmental compensation as directed       A
    by the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi in
    O.A. No.147 of 2016 (Aditya N. Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of
    India & Ors.).
    ii. As regards the new petroleum outlets of Stage 1 and Stage 2
    (having 100 KL/Month to 300 KL/Month) and for Stage 1A                 B
    (Storage depots) are concerned, the same will have to be installed
    within the extended time fixed by the CPCB both by public sector
    undertaking and private sector undertaking and if there is any
    violation found, then they are directed to take appropriate action
    for such violation as directed by the Principal Bench of National
    Green Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.147 of 2016 (Aditya N.            C
    Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
    iii. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as well as the
    State Pollution Control Boards are directed to issue direction under
    Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section
    18 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974        D
    and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to make it
    mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate
    for new petroleum outlets to be established in future and even to
    those which are under the preparation of establishment, but not
    started construction as has been done by the State Pollution Control   E
    Board, Kerala and such a direction should be issued within a period
    of 3 (Three) months and till then, all the new Retail Petroleum
    Outlets are directed to apply for Consent to Establish and Consent
    to Operate before its establishment.
    iv. We also direct all the existing Retail Petroleum Outlets           F
    irrespective of its turnover to obtain Consent to Operate for the
    existing outlets within a period of 6 (Six) Months. If it is not
    obtained, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board is
    directed to take appropriate action against such petrol pumps in
    accordance with law.
                                                                           G
    v. Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their
    respective cost in the application.
    vi. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
    Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC),
    Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, Integrated Regional
                                                                           H
222             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           Office of the Central Pollution Control Board, Bangalore and
            Chennai, State Pollution Control Boards of Tamil Nadu, Kerala,
            Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and also to the Pollution
            Control Committee of Union Territory of Puducherry for their
            information and compliance of the direction.”
B          7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid directions issued by the
      NGT, Chennai, the appellant is here before this Court.
            8. The other oil marketing companies (OMCs) before this Court
      seeking to challenge the very self same order passed by the NGT are :
      (1) M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2) M/s Hindustan Petroleum
C     Corporation Limited; (3) M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
      (4) M/s Nayara Energy Limited, and (5) M/s Shell India Markets Private
      Ltd.
            Submissions on behalf of the appellant:
             9. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
D     appellant herein submitted that it does not seek to challenge the directions
      contained in para 69(i) and 69(ii) resply of the impugned order i.e.
      regarding the installation of the VRS/VRD. The learned counsel would
      like to confine his challenge only to the direction issued in para 69(iii)
      and para 69(iv) resply referred to above i.e. in regard to the Consent to
E     Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO).
             10. The learned counsel submitted that the present appeal gives
      rise to three substantial questions of law which read thus:-
            A. Whether the NGT can issue directions which are in the nature
            of legislative functions?
F
            B. Whether the public sector and private sector OMCs and/or
            ROs (Retail Outlets) are required to obtain Consent to Establish
            and/or Consent to Operate for operation, establishment and
            carrying on the business of ROs?
            C. Whether the NGT can impose requirement of obtaining an
G           additional approval merely to provide for a regulating mechanism
            to supervise compliance of the existing guidelines issued by the
            CPCB?
            11. The learned counsel submitted that the directions issued in
      para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the impugned order are legislative in
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                          223
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

nature and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT. He would submit      A
that the directions issued by the NGT, Chennai to the CPCB making it
mandatory to obtain CTE and CTO for ROs would amount to enacting
a law under the guise of judicial order. It was further submitted that
there is no rational basis to issue the directions making it mandatory for
the ROs to obtain CTE and/or CTO. According to the learned counsel,
                                                                              B
the only basis for the NGT to issue such directions is to ensure proper
regulatory mechanism and/or to secure compliance of the guidelines
issued by the CPCB regarding installation of VRS, etc. It was also
submitted that the impugned directions are directly in conflict with the
object with which the reclassification of industries has been done by the
CPCB. It was pointed out that the petroleum retail outlets fall within the    C
green zone and for any industry falling within the green zone, it is not
mandatory to obtain CTO and/or CTE. It was further submitted that the
process of setting up of a RO requires obtaining of numerous approvals
and the same takes a considerable period of time. For instance, even
prior to the construction of ROs, the OMCs are required to obtain
                                                                              D
approvals from inter alia (1) Petroleum & Explosives Safety
Organisation (PESO), (2) Town and Country Planning Officers, (3)
National Highway Authority of India, (4) District/Divisional Forest
Officer/Regional Forest Officer, (5) approvals from the State Cabinet,
etc. Furthermore, the OMCs are also required to obtain No-Objection
Certificate from the concerned District Magistrate. Such NOC from             E
the District Magistrate comprises of approvals from various authorities,
such as – the fire department, Police Department, PWD, Health and
Safety, concerned Municipality and/or any other authority that the District
Magistrate may consider necessary. Thereafter, upon construction of
the ROs, the OMCs are required to obtain final approvals from inter alia
                                                                              F
PESO, National Highway Authority of India, Legal Metrology
Department Labour Department and the concerned Municipality. The
timelines for some of the aforesaid approvals range over 120 to 240
days. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, by making
it mandatory to obtain the CTO and CTE for setting up/operating a RO
would cause lot of hardship and also delay the setting of ROs.                G
       12. The learned counsel laid much stress on the fact that the
CPCB its vide Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 had issued
guidelines for setting up of new petroleum pumps in compliance of the
order passed by the NGT dated 18.01.2019 in O.A. No. 86 of 2019 titled
Gyanprakhash @ Pappu Singh v. GoI & Ors. The guidelines are                   H
224            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     very exhaustive and they take care of the apprehension expressed by
      the NGT in its impugned order. Once these guidelines are scrupulously
      observed and followed, there is no need thereafter to obtain CTO and/or
      CTE.
             13. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel
B     appearing for the appellant prayed that there being merit in his appeal,
      the same may be allowed and the directions issued in para 69(iii) and
      para 69(iv) of the impugned order passed by the NGT, Chennai be set
      aside.
            Submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 2 – the original
C           applicant before the NGT:
             14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (the
      original applicant) vehemently submitted that no error, not to speak of
      any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the NGT in
      issuing the impugned directions. It was submitted that no interference is
D     warranted at the hands of this Court in an appeal filed under Section 22
      of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, ‘the NGT Act’).
      According to the learned counsel, an appeal under Section 22 of the
      NGT Act is restricted to substantial questions of law. There is no
      substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. In such
      circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that there
E     being no merit in the present appeal, the same may be dismissed.
            Submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 1- CPCB:
             15. Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General submitted
      that there was no need for the NGT to issue the impugned directions as
F     contained in para 69(iii) and para 69(iv) resply, more particularly in view
      of the detailed guidelines issued by the CPCB vide the Office
      Memorandum dated 07.01.2020. According to Mr. Mehta, what is sought
      to be achieved by asking the ROs to obtain CTE and/or CTO can very
      well be taken care of by ensuring that all the existing ROs and the ROs
      that may come up in future scrupulously abide by the guidelines issued
G     by the CPCB. The CPCB has ensured that all the State Pollution Control
      Boards keep a very strong vigil on the ROs across the country so as to
      ensure that the guidelines issued by it are scrupulously followed. Even,
      according to Mr. Mehta, to ask all the existing ROs to obtain CTO is
      something very unreasonable. According to Mr. Mehta, the same requires
      a lot of paper work and is very time consuming.
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                           225
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

      16. Mr. Mehta would submit that it is highly debatable that the          A
NGT could have directed the CPCB that it should in exercise of powers
under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short,
‘the Act 1986’) make it mandatory to obtain CTE and/or CTO.
       17. Mr. Mehta in the last submitted that so far as directions
contained in para 69(i) & 69(ii) resply are concerned, the same shall be       B
complied with in its true perspective and the State Pollution Control Boards
shall ensure due compliance of the same. He would submit that the
CPCB shall also ensure that the guidelines issued by it referred to above
are strictly adhered to by the all State Pollution Control Boards and, if
there is any lapse at the end of any retail outlet, then necessary action
shall be taken in accordance with law.                                         C

       18. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mehta prays
that the directions contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) may be set aside
or modified appropriately.
      Analysis:                                                                D
        19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that
falls for our consideration is : (i) whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to
direct the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5
of the Act 1986 make obtaining of the CTE and CTO resply mandatory             E
for all the petroleum retail outlets across the country?
       20. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated 07.02.2022
in one of the connected appeals i.e. Civil Appeal 494 of 2022, observed
thus:-
      “Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.                                  F
      Meanwhile, the directions issued vide impugned order of the
      National Green Tribunal dated 23.12.2021 shall remain stayed
      provided the petitioner complies with the directions issued by the
      Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) dated 04.06.2021
      prescribing fresh timeline for completion of installation of Vapor       G
      Recovery Devises (VRD).
      Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
      has stated that in terms of the said directions of CPCB dated
      04.06.2021, Vapor Recovery Devises have already been installed
                                                                               H
226            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           in 50% retail outlets by December, 2021 in the specified category
            and the remaining timeline shall also be complied with.”
             21. As the principal argument of all the learned counsel appearing
      for the respective oil marketing companies in the present litigation is in
      regard to the jurisdiction of the NGT to issue the impugned directions, it
B     is necessary to first understand the entire scheme of the NGT Act.
            Scheme of the NGT Act, 2010:
            22. The preamble to the NGT Act reads as follows:-
            “An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Green
C           Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating
            to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other
            natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating
            to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages
            to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or
            incidental thereto.
D
            AND WHEREAS India is a party to the decisions taken at the
            United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at
            Stockholm in June, 1992, in which India participated, calling upon
            the States to provide effective access to judicial and administrative
            proceedings, including redress and remedy and to develop national
E           laws regarding liability and compensation for the victims of
            population and other environmental damage;
            AND WHEREAS in the judicial pronouncement in India, the right
            to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right
            to life under article 21 of the Constitution.
F
            AND WHEREAS it is considered expedient to implement the
            decisions taken at the aforesaid conference and to have a National
            Green Tribunal in view of the involvement of multi-disciplinary
            issues relating to the environment.”
             23. The jurisdiction and powers of the NGT are to be found in
G     Sections 14 to 20 resply. A close look at these provisions would show
      that the NGT has both original as well as appellate jurisdiction. The
      range of powers that the NGT has include:-
            (i) the power to adjudicate upon civil cases where a substantial
            question relating to environment is involved (Section 14(1));
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                          227
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

      (ii) the power to grant relief and compensation to the victims of       A
      pollution (Section 15(1)(a); and
      (iii) the power to order restitution of either property damaged or
      of the environment (Section 15(1)(b).
        24. A person in whose favour the NGT passes an award or order,
is entitled to two types of remedies, if the award or order or the decision   B
of the NGT is not complied with. The first is a right to seek execution of
the award under Section 25 and the second is to seek the prosecution of
the offenders before a criminal court under Section 26.
       25. Apart from the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts under Section
29, the NGT Act is also conferred the overriding effect upon any other        C
law under Section 33, which reads as follows:
      “Section 33. Act to have overriding effect:—The provisions
      of this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent
      contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any
      instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”     D
      26. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the NGT Act repeals the
following enactments:-
      (i) The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995
      (ii) The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997             E
      27. Apart from repealing the above two enactments expressly
under sub-section (1) of Section 38, the NGT Act also contains a provision
in sub-Section (8) of Section 38 which deals with implied repeal. Sub-
Section (8) of Section 38 reads as follows:-
      “(8) The mention of the particular matters referred to in sub-          F
      sections (2) to (7) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the
      general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
      (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal.”
      28. In so far as the execution of the orders of NGT are concerned,
Section 25 confers two types of powers as noted below:-                       G

      (a) The power to execute the award by itself, as if the award is a
      decree of a civil court and
      (b) The power to transmit the award to a civil court for its
      execution.
                                                                              H
228             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           29. As stated earlier, the failure of any person to comply with the
      award of the NGT is also made punishable under Section 26, with
      imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years or with fine
      which may extend to ten crore rupees or with both. Section 27 makes
      every company and every person directly in charge of the affairs of the
      company liable to prosecution. Section 28 makes even the Government
B
      Departments liable to be prosecuted and punished. Such powers are not
      available for the Loss of Ecology Authority.
              30. Though Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 makes offences under
      the AGT Act known cognizable, Section 30(1)(b) entitles any person
      who has given notice of not less than sixty days in the prescribed manner,
C     of the alleged offences and of his intention to prosecute, to file a complaint
      before the competent court. Interestingly, Section 30(1)(b) does not even
      use the expression “aggrieved person”. It uses only an expression “any
      person”.
            31. The 186th Report of the Law Commission, submitted in 2003,
D     eventually paved the way for the enactment of the NGT Act. This can
      be seen from the relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and
      Reasons of the NGT Act which read as follows:-
             “4. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted to
             provide for strict liability for damages arising out of any accident
E            occurring while handling any hazardous substance and for the
             establishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effective
             and expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, with
             a view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons,
             property and the environment. However, the National Environment
F            Tribunal, which had a very limited mandate, was not established.
             The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 was
             enacted to establish the National Environment Appellate Authority
             to hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which any
             industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations
             or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject
G            to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act,
             1986. The National Environment Appellate Authority has a limited
             workload because of the narrow scope of its jurisdiction.
             5. Taking into account the large number of environmental cases
             pending in higher courts and the involvement of multidisciplinary
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                            229
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

      issues in such cases, the Supreme Court requested the Law                 A
      Commission of India to consider the need for constitution of
      specialised environmental courts. Pursuant to the same, the Law
      Commission has recommended the setting up of environmental
      courts having both original and appellate jurisdiction relating to
      environmental laws.
                                                                                B
      6. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, a need has been felt to
      establish a specialised tribunal to handle the multidisciplinary issues
      involved in environmental cases. Accordingly, it has been decided
      to enact a law to provide for the establishment of the National
      Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of civil cases
      relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests          C
      and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal
      right relating to environment.”
      32. From the 186th Report of the Law Commission and the salient
features of the Act, the following could be deduced:
                                                                                D
      (1) The creation of the National Green Tribunal, was in pursuance
      of the repeated directions issued by this Court in at least four cases
      namely, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 176], Indian
      Council for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC
      212], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC
      718], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu [(2001) 2 SCC           E
      62].
      (2) The object of creation of the National Green Tribunal was to
      provide, what could be called a one-stop-shop solution, for all types
      of issues such as Environmental clearances, settlement of disputes
      relating to environment, relief and compensation for victims of           F
      pollution and environmental damage, restitution of property,
      restitution of environment etc.
      (3) The Tribunal was to have both original and Appellate jurisdiction,
      with enormous powers not only to execute its orders as decrees
      of civil courts, but also to punish those who fail to comply with its     G
      orders.
      (4) The Tribunal was to collect a court fee and entertain claims
      preferred within a period of limitation.

                                                                                H
230             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            33. Under the NGT Act, the Act 1986 was also amended. By
      Section 36 of the NGT Act, Section 5A was inserted in the Act 1986.
      Under this Section, any direction issued by the Central Government under
      Section 5, either for the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry,
      operation or process or the stoppage or regulation of the supply of
      electricity or water or any other service, was made appealable to the
B
      National Green Tribunal.
             34. The legal effect of Section 5A of the Act 1986, if juxtaposed
      in to Section 5 read with Section 3(3) will be:—
             (1) that Central Government is competent to issue certain directions
C            under Section 5;
             (2) that the power under Section 5 can also be exercised by the
             Authority constituted under Section 3(3); and
             (3) that the directions issued under Section 5, either by the Central
             Government itself or by the Authority constituted under Section
D            3(3) are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the National
             Green Tribunal.
            35. We now proceed to consider whether the NGT has the power
      & jurisdiction to issue directions to the CPCB/its delegates to take all
      such measures if in a given case the NGT finds that such directions are
E     necessary in the interest of justice.

             36. Section 3 of the Act 1986 expressly empowers the Central
      Government or its delegate, as the case may be, to “take all such measures
      as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and
      improving the quality of environment.........”. Section 5 clothes the Central
F
      Government or its delegate with the power to issue directions for achieving
      the objects of the Act. Read with the wide definition of “environment” in
      Section 2(a), Sections 3 and 5 resply clothe the Central Government
      with all such powers as are “necessary or expedient for the purpose of
      protecting and improving the quality of the environment”. The Central
G     Government is empowered to take all measures and issue all such
      directions as are called for the above purpose.
            37. We take notice of the fact that the Central Government has
      framed the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures) Rules,
      2011 (for short, ‘the NGT Rules’). For our purpose, Rule 24 is important
H     which reads thus:-
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                        231
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

      “Rule 24. Order and directions in certain cases.— The                 A
      Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be
      necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent
      abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”
      38. The aforesaid Rule 24 fell for the consideration of this Court
in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021            B
SCC OnLine SC 897. We quote the few relevant observations made
by this Court in Ankita Sinha (supra) as regards the powers of the
National Green Tribunal:-
      “16.3 The said Rules make it clear that the NGT has been given
      wide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This power   C
      is coupled with the duty to be exercised for achieving the
      objectives. The intention understandably being to preserve and
      protect the environment and the matters connected thereto.
      16.4 By choosing to employ a phrase of wide import, i.e. secure
      the ends of justice, the legislature has nudged towards a liberal     D
      interpretation. Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude and
      does not simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rival
      entities. It also encompasses inter alia, advancing causes of
      environmental rights, granting compensation to victims of
      calamities, creating schemes for giving effect to the environmental
      principles and even hauling up authorities for inaction, when need    E
      be.
      16.5 Moreover, unlike the civil courts which cannot travel beyond
      the relief sought by the parties, the NGT is conferred with power
      of moulding any relief. The provisions show that the NGT is vested
      with the widest power to appropriate relief as may be justified in    F
      the facts and circumstances of the case, even though such relief
      may not be specifically prayed for by the parties.
      21.6 … The above would show that from the very inception, the
      role of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis
      but to perform equally vital roles which are preventative,            G
      ameliorative or remedial in 17 (1999) 2 SCC 718 nature. The
      functional capacity of the NGT was intended to leverage wide
      powers to do full justice in its environmental mandate.

                                                                            H
232      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     IX. AUTHORITY WITH SELF-ACTIVATING CAPABILITY
      25.1 Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and the
      purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutory
      provisions, it would be fitting to regard the NGT as having the
      mechanism to set in motion all necessary functions within its
B     domain and this, as would follow from the discussion below, should
      necessarily clothe it with the authority to take suo motu cognizance
      of matters, for effective discharge of its mandate.
      25.7 The duty to safeguard Article 21 rights cannot stand on a
      narrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must be
C     allowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invoked
      in the environmental domain, in larger public interest. The
      specialized forum is bestowed with the responsibility to ensure
      protection of the environment. To be effective in its domain, we
      need to ascribe to the NGT a public responsibility to initiate action
      when required, to protect the substantive right of a clean
D     environment and the procedural law should not be obstructive in
      its application.
      26.3 As earlier seen, S.20 of the NGT Act which includes the
      term “decision”, in addition to “order” and “award”, also require
      the Tribunal to apply the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the statutory
E     mandate being relevant is extracted:-
             “20. Tribunal to apply certain principles.
             - The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decisions or
             award, apply the principles of sustainable development, the
F            precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.”
      26.4 The principle set out above must apply in the widest amplitude
      to ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposes
      but also for other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authorities
      or polluters, when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attack
      the causes of environmental degradation”. Two aspects must
G
      therefore be emphasized i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required to
      carry out preventive and protective measures, as well as hold
      governmental and private authorities accountable for failing to
      uphold environmental interests. Thus, a narrow interpretation for
      NGT’s powers should be eschewed to adopt one which allows
H     for full flow of the forum’s power within the environmental domain.”
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                           233
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

      CONSENT          TO     ESTABLISH            &   CONSENT         TO      A
      OPERATE:
        39. What is “Consent to Establish” (CTE) and what is “Consent
to Operate” (CTO)? Consent to Establish (CTE) means the prior
permission of the pollution control board to begin the work of construction
of petrol retailing outlet at any place. At this stage, the ground water       B
level in the proposed site, nature of the ground water, its corrosive
properties, availability of residential premises, schools, probable danger
to environment from the proposed outlet, etc. would be considered by
the Pollution Control Board. In case consent to establish its given, the
conditions to be complied with would be prescribed in order to safeguard
the air ambience and ground water quality and also the soil. The power         C
in this regard is available under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act,1974.
       40. Consent to Operate (CTO) means after the establishment of
the retail petroleum outlets, a certificate is issued permitting to commence
operation. At this stage, the actual compliance of the conditions imposed      D
while issuing the “consent to establish” are ascertained. In case, any
additional measures are required to be undertaken, further orders would
be issued. After satisfying about the complete safeguard to environment
such certificate is issued. In case of a new outlet, the company will first
get the consent to establish and after establishment and before                E
operationalizing the petrol bank, the consent to operate is to be obtained.
In existing outlets, the safeguards available in their units will have to be
shown, thereby indicating & assuring the pollution control board that the
unit would not cause damage to the environment. After such satisfaction,
the pollution control board would issue a certificate permitting them to
operate continuously. The object of the last direction is to ensure that the   F
existing outlets are safe not only regarding air pollution but also against
seepage to the ground water and soil. NGT has inherent power to issue
this direction since it is only to ensure the safety of the existing units.
     41. The fundamental documents required for seeking CTE and
CTO are as under:-                                                             G
      Consent to Establish:
      • Site plan of the production unit/project
      • Brief project report which covers the details of raw material,
      proposed product, the capital cost of the establishment (land and        H
234               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           plant machinery), water-balance, water source, and its proposed
            quantity
            • Land documentation such as rend deed/ Registration deed/ Lease
            deed
            • Details of air pollution control/ Water Pollution control equipment
B
            • MOA /Partnership Deed
            Consent to Operate:
            • Copy of the last Consent granted by competent Authority
            • Layout schematics manifesting the detail of manufacturing
C
            processes
            • Latest analysis report of effluent, solid wastes, fuel gases, and
            hazardous wastes.
            • Balance sheet copy attested by CA
D           • Detail relating to land in case trade effluent is discharged on
            land for percolation
            • Occupation registration accorded by Town & Country Planning
            Department in case of area development projects/ Building &
            construction projects
E
            • MOA /Partnership Deed
            42. It will be in the fitness of things to incorporate in this judgment
      the guidelines issued by the CPCB vide its Office Memorandum dated
      07.01.2020 for setting up new petroleum pumps. The guidelines are as
F     follows:-
            “GUIDELINES FOR SETTING UP OF NEW PETROL
            PUMPS
             A.     Containment and treatment of spillages from fuel filling
                    operations at petrol pumps:
G            1.     Petrol pumps located in areas with high groundwater table
                    i.e. groundwater levels less than 04 meters shall have
                    secondary containment by way of double walled tanks or
                    concrete protection wails so as to minimize groundwater
                    and soil contamination. It shall be the responsibility of OMC
H                   to properly get measured groundwater level at the site of
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                       235
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

         proposed petrol pump and ensure implementation of these           A
         adequate protection measures for such sites. Details of
         measures taken by Oil Marketing Company shall be placed
         in public domain and in case of contradictory view, view of
         State/ Central Ground Water Board/ Authority wild prevail.
    2.   All new retail outlets shall have underground tanks/ above        B
         ground tank and its ancillary components such as pipes,
         flexible connectors, pumps fittings etc( protected from leaks
         due to corrosion by adopting materials (HDPE/ Mild Steel
         etc.) with required protective coating, as applicable, duly
         approved by PESO.
                                                                           C
    3.   Any major leakage/ spillage of Petrol, Diesel, Lube Oil (more
         than barrel-165 litres) occurs at fueling station, concerned
         OMC shall report to State Pollution Control Board, PESO
         and District Administration under intimation to CPCB within
         24 hours of occurrence.
                                                                           D
         Operation of concerned underground storage tank (UST)
         and its ancillary components shall be stopped immediately
         and not be resumed till corrective measures to contain and
         stop leakage/ spillages are implemented to the satisfaction
         of PESO and concerned SPCB.
                                                                           E
         OMCs will be held liable for Environmental Compensation
         (imposed by SPCBs/PCCs) and assessment of
         environmental damage (depending on extent of
         contamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation.
         Consultant/ Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damage
         assessment and site remediation shall have minimum                F
         national/ international experience of 5 years in this field.
         Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaning
         underground contaminants.
    4.   All DUs shall have Auto Cut off Nozzles which shuts
         dispensation of fuel if its level in customer fuel tank reaches   G
         full capacity.
    5.   Breakaways to be installed for all the hoses of dispensing
         units to reduce spillage in the event of customer vehicles
         moves away with nozzle still in the fueling position.
                                                                           H
236         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     6.      Single/double plane swivel with breakaway coupling shall
              be installed for all the dispensing units for better positioning
              of nozzle while refueling does not fall off accidently.
      7.      In pressurized dispensation, all dispensing units shall be
              installed with shear valves to cut the fuel flow from pipe
B             line immediately upon accidental knocking of dispensing
              units from its position.
      8.      In pressurized system all Submersible Turbine Pumps
              (STPs) are to installed with line leak detectors and in the
              event of pipeline leaks STPs shall stop pumping fuel from
C             underground tanks.
      9.      Emergency stop button switch shall be provided on the Multi-
              Product Dispenser (MPD) to stop the dispensation in case
              of emergency.
      10.     Automation system shall be installed at all new retail outlets
D             to alert in case of tank leak by way of auto gauging system
              approved by PESO.
      11.     All Retail Outlets shall provide overfill alarm through
              automation.
      12.     Measures for spill containment in fill point chambers and
E
              forecourt area shall be implemented as prescribed by PESO.
      B.      Check on leakages (Leakage Detection System) from
              underground storage tanks so as to prevent groundwater
              and soil contamination:
F     1.      All new retail outlets will have automation system installed
              which will provide reports on volume balance after every
              day operation and records shall be maintained.
      2.      Manual gauging shall be done once in a month and compare
              the same with Automatic Tank Gauging for accuracy.
G     3.      Daily MS and HSD loss shall not exceed MoPNG prescribed
              limits. In case of leakage beyond such limits, matter shall
              be got analyzed by OMCs and further action shall be taken
              for ascertaining the reasons of losses. In case of leakage
              resulting in soil/groundwater contamination:
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                     237
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

    a.   Concerned OMC shall report to State Pollution Control           A
         Board, PESO and District Administration under intimation
         to CPCB within 24 hours of occurrence. Operation of such
         underground storage tank (UST) and its ancillary
         components shall be stopped immediately.
    b.   Fuel shall be removed immediately from underground storage      B
         tank to prevent further release to environment. Measures
         to prevent explosion due to vapors released due to leakage
         as recommended by PESO shall be implemented
         immediately.
    c.   OMCs will be held liable for Environmental compensation         C
         (imposed by SPCBs/PCCS) and assessment of
         environmental damage (depending on extent of
         contamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation.
         Consultant/ Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damage
         assessment and site remediation shall have minimum              D
         national/ international experience of 05 years in this field.
         Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaning
         underground contaminants.
    d.   Operation of Underground tank and its ancillary components
         shall not be resumed till corrective measures to contain and    E
         stop leakages are implemented to the satisfaction of PESO
         and concerned SPCB.
    4.   All underground tanks and pipelines shall be subjected to
         test for leaks every 7 years.
    C.   Policy towards Treatment and disposal of sludge removed         F
         from underground tanks during cleaning:
    D.   Installation, Operation and maintenance of Vapour
         Recovery System:
    1.   All new retail outlets set up with sale potential of 300KL
         MS per month and setting up in cities with population more      G
         than 1 lakh will be provided with YRS. YRS should be
         functional by the time of sale of MS touch 300 KL. In case
         of failure of installation of VRS, Environment Compensation
         will be levied by SPCBs/ PCCs equivalent to the cost of
                                                                         H
238        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            VRS and this will further increase proportionate to the period
             of non-compliance.
      2.     Any new retail outlet set up in cities having population more
             than 10 Iakh and having sale potential of 100 KL MS per
             month will be provided with YRS. YRS should be installed
B            within a period 03 months from the day of sale of MS touch
             100 KL. In case of failure of installation of VRS,
             Environment Compensation will be levied by SPCBs/ PCCs
             equivalent to the cost of VRS and this will further increase
             proportionate to the period of non-compliance.
C     3.     In case of Stage II VRS, nozzle shall be provided with
             flexible cover flap or other alternative system for proper
             covering of filling tank and therefore proper recovery of
             vapors.
      4.     OMCs are responsible for maintaining installed VRS. They
D            have to maintain periodic inspections for AJL regulator as
             prescribed by Legal Metrology. Proper record shall be
             maintained,
      5.     Working of dispenser shall be interlinked with VRS
             functioning. Online system shall be developed within 06
E            months to monitor status of operation of VRS. In case of
             non-operation of YRS, the same shall be automatically
             reported to concerned OMC. YRS shall be brought into
             operation immediately within 24 hrs and in any case within
             72 hrs failing which sale of MS shall be stopped from the
             fueling station. Proper records of operation of YRS shall
F            be maintained.
      6.     Work zone monitoring for Total VOC and Benzene shall be
             conducted by OMCs for petrol pumps selling more than
             300 KL/ month and more than IO lakh population (in first
             phase) by E(P)Act, 1986 approved labs once in a year to
G            check compliance with OSHA norms (Time-Weighted
             Average) and report shall be submitted to SPCB. In addition,
             pilot study shall be conducted by OMCs through expert
             institutions for online monitoring of VOCs.
      E.     Ground water and soil quality monitoring within petrol pump
H            selling more than 300 KL/ month and more than 10 lakh
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                       239
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

          population shall be conducted by OMCs once in two years          A
          through E(P)Act, 1986 approved labs for the following
          parameters from the nearest source and report submitted
          to SPCB:
    Permissible Limit
                                                                           B




                                                                           C




    Enforcement agencies including SPCB can collect samples m and
                                                                           D
    around petrol pump to check contamination
    F.    Measures for protection of Worker’s Health
          1.    All workers engaged at retail outlets may be covered
                under ESI, OMC dealers shall implement the personal
                protective equipment (PPE) m par labor laws.               E
          2.    IEC (Information Education Communication)
                activities should be organized by OMC dealers for
                workers at regular intervals in order to sensitize them
                about harmful impacts of VOC emissions,
    G.    Audit of all protection measures and monitoring                  F
          system implemented at petrol pumps:
          PESO shall conduct audit of tanks and fuel equipment
          including pipes, overfill protection equipment and alarm
          system on annual basis and maintain records.
                                                                           G
    H.    Siting criteria of Retail Outlets:
          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
                                                                           H
240             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A                   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
B
                    meters. No high tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.”
             43. Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
      Act, 1981 places restrictions, both on establishment and operation of
      any industrial plant located in an air pollution control area without previous
      consent of the Board. The legislative intent behind this provision would
C     lead to decipher two concepts - one, the consent for the purpose of
      establishing an industrial plant while the other for operation of that plant.
      The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when a unit or an industrial
      plant is given consent to operate, the unit ought to have satisfied all the
      conditions stated in the order of consent to establish and would have
D     installed the requisite effluent treatment plants and other anti-pollution
      devices to ensure that it causes no pollution.
            44. The upshot of our aforesaid discussion is that the NGT was
      well within its powers and jurisdiction to issue the directions which have
      been impugned before us. However, we would like to address on the
E     question — whether the impugned directions are reasonable and whether
      the same may lead to unnecessary harassment and cause immense
      hardships to the retail outlets?
             45. We take notice of the fact that all the appellants before us
      have installed VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. We also
F     take notice of the fact that the respondent No. 2 (original applicant) had
      not prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory.
      The prayers in O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State of
      Tamil Nadu only. However, the NGT, Chennai by its impugned order
      has directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10 lakh
      population to install VRS mechanism which are having turnover of more
G     than 300 KL/Month. We also take notice of the fact that the CPCB in
      consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued
      circulars/guidelines from time to time for installation of VRS (also known
      as Vapour Recovery Device circular). We are not inclined to disturb the
      impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regard to installation
H
M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON                           241
            & OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

of the VRS. The CPCB shall ensure that these directions are scrupulously       A
followed and complied with.
       46. What is important for us to note is that in the directions/
guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016 resply
the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green” which may
be exempted from consent management. The learned Solicitor General             B
submitted that it is only after due consideration and deliberations that the
CPCB issued the said directions. The NGT itself in para 66 of its
impugned order has noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green
category” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears to us that
the apprehension on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS
may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led       C
the NGT to issue directions to the CPCB & State Pollution Control
Boards to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTE
and CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum outlets.
What has been argued before us and also on the basis of the materials
on record, we are convinced that it is not necessary to make obtaining of      D
CTE and CTO mandatory. We would like to impress upon the CPCB to
ensure that its guidelines referred to above are scrupulously followed
and once the guidelines are scrupulously adhered to, no direction to obtain
CTE and CTO for starting/operating a RO is warranted. We are at one
with the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants that
asking the existing ROs to obtain CTO is something very unreasonable           E
and may lead to various difficulties. Even directing the ROs that may
come up in future to obtain the CTE and CTO would be cumbersome
and time consuming and thus we do not find it reasonable.
       47. In such circumstances, while holding that the National Green
Tribunal has the power to direct the CPCB that it should exercise its          F
powers under Section 5 of the Act 1986 for the purpose of protecting
the environment, we are inclined to modify the impugned directions issued
by the NGT, Chennai as contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the
impugned order.
      48. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Civil Appeal No.         G
2039 of 2022 in the following terms:-
      (a) The CPCB shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets
      located in different cities having population of more than 10 lakh
      and having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the
                                                                               H
242               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A              VRS mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its
               Circular dated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCB
               shall ensure that the directions issued by the NGT as contained in
               para 69(i) and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. It
               shall be the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards
               to ensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to the
B
               installation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within the
               fresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB.
               (b) We set aside the directions issued by the NGT in the impugned
               order as contained in para 69(iii) and (iv). Instead, we direct the
               CPCB to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure
C              that the guidelines issued by it vide the Office Memorandum dated
               07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If there is breach of any of the
               guidelines issued by the CPCB vide Office Memorandum dated
               07.01.2020, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board shall
               proceed against the erring outlet in accordance with law at the
D              earliest.
               49. The connected Appeals are also disposed of in the aforesaid
      terms.
               50. There shall be no order as to costs.

E              51. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


      Ankit Gyan                                                    Appeals disposed of.
      (Assisted by : Adityaraj Patodia and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)



F




G




H