Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, AOR Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Jaskirat Pal Singh, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Pandey, Adv. Ms. Kritika, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Vishnu Sharma A S, Adv. Ms. Namrata Saraogi, Adv. Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anoop G. Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mrs. June Chaudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mrs. M.b.ramya, Adv. Mrs. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

The court emphasized the necessity of bona fide actions in legal proceedings, ruling that compliance with environmental regulations must be demonstrated, rejecting claims that the NOC was improperly granted.

Headnote:(A) National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 14 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - PETROLEUM RULES, 2002 - The appellants challenged the grinding of NOC for a petrol pump, alleging failure to comply with safety and environmental regulations. The respondents obtained necessary permissions from relevant authorities before the case was filed. The Joint Committee's findings indicated no residential areas within the required distance from the petrol pump. The NGT dismissed the appellants' application for lack of merit, stating the concerns about environmental and safety issues were addressed by existing permissions. (Paras 9, 14, 16, 21)

(B) Access to Justice - The court emphasizes integrity and bona fides in legal proceedings before tribunals to maintain legal standards and prevent the misuse of the judicial process. (Paras 1, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to quash the NOC for a petrol pump based on alleged violations of several environmental guidelines, claiming the grant of permissions was unauthorized and that it posed environmental risks. (Paras 2-4)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the NGT's ruling and rejected the appellants' claims, confirming that all necessary approvals were issued in compliance with the regulatory framework. (Paras 21)

Issues: Whether the NOC for the petroleum outlet violated the NGT's guidelines and relevant environmental laws, and if the appellants had suppressed relevant facts in their application. (Paras 12, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the appellants initiated parallel proceedings without disclosure, undermining the integrity of their claims and deemed their application frivolous after established compliance with relevant safety regulations. (Para 21)

Result: Civil appeals dismissed with costs.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points with corresponding references:

Subject Matter: The case pertains to Environmental Law and Petroleum Regulation, specifically regarding the challenge to a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for a petrol pump. [judgement_subject] (!)
Legislation Referred: The judgment refers to the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and the Petroleum Rules, 2002. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Core Issue: The appellants challenged the NOC granted by the District Collector on 07.02.2024, alleging violations of environmental guidelines, safety regulations, and proximity to residential areas, schools, and hospitals. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Appellants' Claims: The appellants argued that the NOC was issued without applying the mind to safety concerns, violated Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and posed risks to public health due to pollution and lack of distance from sensitive areas. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Respondents' Permissions: The respondents had obtained various permissions prior to the filing of the NGT application, including NOCs from PESO, local Panchayat, Road Development Corporation, Electricity Board, Industrial Department, and the Pollution Control Board. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Joint Committee Findings: A Joint Committee visited the site and found that while commercial establishments and unauthorized colonies existed nearby, there were no designated residential colonies, schools, or hospitals within the mandatory 50-meter radius, and the nearest habitation was 600 meters away. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
NGT Judgment: The National Green Tribunal dismissed the original application, ruling that the safety and environmental concerns were addressed by existing PESO approvals and Consent to Operate, and that the challenge regarding the NOC was frivolous. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Review Petition: The appellants filed a review petition alleging lack of notice and opportunity, which was also dismissed by the NGT. (!)
Parallel Proceedings Allegation: The Supreme Court found that the appellants had initiated parallel proceedings: an original application before the NGT and a subsequent Writ Petition (No. 41030 of 2024) before the High Court challenging the same NOC on overlapping grounds. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Suppression of Facts: The Court held that the appellants suppressed the fact of filing the parallel Writ Petition, undermining the integrity of the proceedings and suggesting the litigation was not bona fide but aimed at subserving the personal business interest of Appellant No. 3. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Final Decision: The Civil Appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association. (!) (!) (!)
Clarification on Municipal Law: The Court clarified that it did not examine the specific issue regarding the violation of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, raised in the pending Writ Petition, which will be disposed of on its own merits. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Table of Content
1. integrity in justice process required (Para 1)
2. appellants' facts and prayers before ngt (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7)
3. challenges to the issuance of nocs must be substantiated with environmental concerns. (Para 5)
4. respondents' permissions and defenses presented (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. judicial analysis of environmental regulations (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. civil appeals dismissed with costs (Para 21)

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 after sufficient warning that, in the event we accept the objections of the respondent about the deliberate nondisclosure 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[Hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT’], 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:

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.

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:

4.18. 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 Resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 1044

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. – AppellantsVersusState Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors – RespondentsCivil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025Decided On : 14-07-2025

The court emphasized the necessity of bona fide actions in legal proceedings, ruling that compliance with environmental regulations must be demonstrated, rejecting claims that the NOC was improperly granted.

Related Judgments

Arun Kumar Sharma VS State Of Madhya Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1044

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. VS Deepak Sharma - 2026 Supreme(SC) 300

Arun Kumar Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 922

S.Paneerselvam vs Joint Chief Controller of Explosives South Circle Chennai Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38385

Kumar Kandhasamy VS Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police Office, Salem - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 325

ANIMESH CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI SURENDRA SINGH Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4865

Thara P. D/o Ramachandran vs State of Kerala - 2026 Supreme(Ker) 337

DEEPAK ACHARYA S/O SHRI PRAKASH CHAND ACHARYA vs HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 18994

SRIKANTH vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 914

Padma Highways Filling Station, represented by its Managing Partner, M. V. S. Suryanarayana Raju VS Regional Administrator cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Government of Puducherry, Yanam - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 555

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025