A party not involved in a Supreme Court appeal may still challenge directions if their interests are affected; compliance timelines set by the NGT have been substituted by the Supreme Court's orders.

ORDER

1. On the previous date, no one had appeared on behalf of the CPCB, therefore, we directed the Member Secretary, CPCB to virtually remain present today to assist the Tribunal. Learned Member Secretary, CPCB appearing virtually has stated that now the instructions have been issued to all the Advocates to appear physically before the Tribunal and to ensure that they are fully prepared in the matter and they appear before the Tribunal without any default.

2. In view of such a statement made by the Member Secretary, CPCB his virtual appearance is exempted. Since the Member Secretary has appeared virtually therefore I.A. No. 378/2025 has become infructuous which is accordingly disposed of.

-

3. By this Appeal filed under Section 18 (1) read with Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010), appellant has challenged the order dated 13.06.2024 issued by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) directing the appellant to comply with the earlier direction of the CPCB dated 15.02.2024 and deposit the Environmental Compensation (EC) of Rs. 1 crore within 15 days.

4. Submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that above order has been passed without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice and without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. His further submission is that this order can be challenged independent of earlier order dated 15.02.2024 issued by CPCB because impugned order is in the nature of a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act, 1986). His further submission is that impugned order has been issued in violation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019 passe in Civil Appeal No. 161-163 of 2019 in the matter of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Aditya N Prasad & Ors, whereby order of NGT was substituted and in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, appellant had implemented the direction of the NGT within the extended time-limit.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.-1-CPCB has submitted that direction contained in the order of the NGT dated 28.09.2018 passed in OA No. 147/2016 in the matter of Aditya N Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. was not complied with by the appellant within the time-limit fixed by the Tribunal and appellant was not a party in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, appellant is not entitled to benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

-

6. Further submission of Learned Counsel for the CPCB is that no show cause notice to the appellant was necessary because it was only an issue of compliance of the order of the NGT.

7. Learned Counsel for the CPCB has also referred to the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in OA No.138/2020(SZ): V.B.R. Menon vs. The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. and has submitted that direction contained in paragraph 69 (ii) was not challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, it was required to be complied with.

8. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is noticed that NGT in the OA No. 147/2016 in the matter of Aditya N. Prasad & Ors. (supra) had considered the issue of installation of stage-I and stage-II vapor recovery devices at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in National Capital Territory of Delhi. Tribunal had noted the undisputed position about the need for installing such stage-I and stage-II vapor recovery devices, therefore, OA was disposed of with the following directions:

“…10 Accordingly, we direct that all the oil companies present before this Tribunal must complete the process by 31.10