The court emphasized that the National Green Tribunal cannot abdicate its adjudicatory responsibilities to expert committees and must adhere to principles of natural justice in decision-making.

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. This is a classic case of how a busy body stalled the commencement of a petrol pump, thus frustrating the establishment of a commercial enterprise and the setting up of a public utility outlet for about six years. The 1st respondent filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (for short, the NGT), allegedly aggrieved with the illegal manner in which a petrol pump was being set up, adjacent to a gas agency and a play school. The specific allegation was that the proposed site offended the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (for short, the CPCB), brought out at the instance of the NGT.

2. The violation was claimed to be of the siting criteria for retail outlets specified in the guidelines dated 07.01.2020 issued by the CPCB for setting up new petrol pumps, in compliance with the order of the NGT in O.A. No.86 of 2019, Gyan Prakash @ Pappu Singh v. Government of India and Ors. The siting criteria provided that new retail outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential areas designated as per the local laws. Where it was impossible to comply with that distance, a relaxation was also provided permitting a lesser criterion of 30 meters, but with additional safety measures implemented as prescribed by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). It was also provided that no high-tension line shall pass over the retail outlet. The said allegation was also raised in the petition.

3. The NGT having heard the parties first by order dated 25.09.2020 called for a report from a Committee comprising the CPCB, the State Pollution Control Board and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, the SEIAA), Uttarakhand, constituted in another similar case. The Committee made its report Annexure-6 confirming that the petrol pump could be established since business activities were carried on, in and around the proposed site. Despite the said report the NGT found that though the Letter of Intent is prior to the guidelines that would not create any vested right when as per the guidelines the proposed site is objectionable. The NGT relying on the precautionary principle found that such units could cause environmental damage, especially from the fumes emitted while dispensing fuel, which required a safe and reasonable distance from any residence, hospital or school. The residence of the owner of the petrol pump itself was found within the prohibited distance. The NGT empowered the Committee constituted to take a final decision in the matter within one month. The CPCB was directed to be the Nodal Agency and till the decision of the Joint Committee, the No Objection Certificates (NOC) issued for the petrol pump were kept in abeyance. Representations were directed to be made before the Committee and the application was disposed of; clearly in abdication of the powers of the NGT, as has been noticed in a number of decisions placed before us.

4. Be that as it may, the Committee convened and made a further report, Annexure-7 and the appellants rely on a third report, Annexure-10. The 1st respondent asserts Annexure-10 is not of the Committee constituted by the NGT since it is signed by only two Engineers.

5. Later, the 1st respondent again approached the NGT, with an Execution Petition under Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. By an order dated 11.11.2022, on the date of admission, without notice to the respondents, the NGT relied on Annexure-7 report dated 08.03.2021 directe