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.

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. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)