1. Review petition concerning the mandatory shifting of a filling station from a site adjacent to a protected ridge area to an alternative location. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 576
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. Punchhi, CJI., S. C. Agarwal, S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
M. C. MEHTA, PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (REGD. PUSA SERVICE STATION), RESPONDENTS.
Review Petition No. 294 of 1998 in I.A. No. 18 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985, decided on May 4, 1998.
A commercial establishment located adjacent to a protected area, but not within it or subservient to its purpose, cannot be compelled to shift from its original location.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Protection of Protected Areas - Shifting of commercial establishment - Filling station located adjacent to a protected zone but not within it - If the site is not part of the protected area and is not subservient to the purpose of such area, there is no requirement for the establishment to be shifted from its original location. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A filling station was ordered to be shifted from its original location to an alternative site. The applicant began operating at the new site while continuing operations at the original site under interim orders. It was subsequently established that the original site was adjacent to, but not part of, a protected ridge area and was not subservient to the purpose of that area.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original site of the filling station was not part of the protected area, but merely adjacent to it, and thus the order to shift the establishment was not warranted.
Issues: Whether a filling station located adjacent to a protected area, but not within it, should be shifted to an alternative location.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a site is not part of a protected area and is not subservient to the purpose of that area, the establishment cannot be compelled to shift from its present location. (Paras 2 and 3)
Result: Review petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to an order directing the relocation of a filling station from a site adjacent to a protected ridge area. (Para 1 )
3. A site adjacent to a protected ridge area, but not part of it or subservient to its purpose, does not warrant mandatory relocation. (Para 2 )
4. Relocation is not required if a site is merely adjacent to a protected area and not subservient to the purpose of that protected area. (Para 2 )
5. Review petition allowed — relocation from original site waived — direction to surrender alternative site and legitimize original site. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. When is a site adjacent to a protected area required to be relocated?
A site does not need to be shifted if it is not part of the protected area and is not subservient to the purpose of that protected area. (Para 2 )
7. Can a party retain both an original site and an alternative site provided for relocation?
No, if the court permits the party to remain at the original site, the alternative site provided for shifting cannot be retained. (Para 3 , 4 )
8. What are the consequences of allowing a review petition to remain at an original site?
The party must surrender the alternative site, and the concerned officials must pass consequential orders to legitimize the operation at the original site. (Para 4 )
ORDER
1. This is a petition by M/s. Pusa Service Station seeking review of that portion of the order of this Court, dated 8-10-1996 in IA No. 18 of 1995 in writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985, which pertains to the applicant-review petitioner. The applicant has been ordered to be shifted from a certain locale in Karol Bagh, New Delhi and it is believed that it has been allotted a site in Janak Puri for shifting. It transpires that the applicant has started functioning at the new site at Janak Puri but at the same time, under the interim orders of this Court, has stuck on to the old site at Karol Bagh and is still functioning there.
2. The case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision dated 7-4-1998 made by this Court in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India ((1998) 5 SCC 610) (Reg. M/s. Link Road Filling Station) for it is the admitted position that the site of the applicant at Karol Bagh is not a part of the Ridge Area but is adjacent thereto and is an adjunct to the road passing nearby from which the applicant filling station has access. There is no case made out for the site of the filling station at Karol Bagh being subservient to the purpose of the Ridge.
3. Thus, on the facts and circumstances, we direct that the applicant - M/s. Pusa Service Station - need not be shifted from its present location at Karol Bagh and that the site given to it in the alternative at Janak Puri cannot be permitted to be retained by it any longer.
4. We, therefore, on allowing this review petition in the above terms direct the applicant to hand over the Janak Puri Filling Station site to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. within a week. We also direct M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Ltd. and other officials concerned to pass appropriate consequential orders so that the applicant Filling Station gets legitimised at the site where it is working at Karol Bagh.
5. The review petition is accordingly allowed.
