A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This Supreme Court decision decisively addressed the mala fide and suppressive conduct of the appellants, who had approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to challenge the establishment of a petrol pump on environmental grounds. The appellants simultaneously pursued a writ petition before the High Court raising similar issues, without informing the Supreme Court about the parallel proceedings. The Court held that the appellants’ actions amounted to suppression of material facts and that the NGT proceedings were instituted to serve private business interests. The judgment underscores the imperative of transparency and integrity in judicial processes, especially when invoking the jurisdiction of specialized environmental forums. The Court emphasized that environmental concerns should not be weaponized for personal gain under the guise of public interest litigation. The appeals were dismissed with costs, reinforcing the principle that judicial forums should not be misused to settle personal scores or commercial rivalries. This decision sets a precedent concerning the sanctity of litigation conduct, especially in matters involving overlapping jurisdictional forums and regulatory frameworks like the Petroleum Rules, municipal laws, and environmental statutes.

Keywords:
Non-disclosure of parallel proceedings; Bonafides of appellants; Overlapping legal challenges; Environmental regulations; Judicial integrity

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment delivered by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Central Zonal Bench, Bhopal, in a dispute concerning the environmental and regulatory legality of establishing a petrol pump in a residentially sensitive area in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The appellants, aggrieved by the Collector’s issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and the pollution control board’s consent, invoked the jurisdiction of the NGT under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Simultaneously, Appellant No. 3 initiated a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on similar grounds. Crucially, the appellants failed to disclose the High Court proceedings before the Supreme Court while the civil appeals were pending. The present appeals were an attempt to overturn the adverse NGT judgment and its dismissal of the review petition. The Supreme Court took serious note of this conduct, stressing the obligation of parties to maintain full candour and avoid forum shopping. The Court’s inquiry extended beyond procedural impropriety to examine whether the NGT application was genuinely motivated by environmental concerns or driven by commercial competition and personal vendetta, given that Appellant No. 3 was engaged in a rival business. The Supreme Court’s judgment not only addressed the merits of the NGT’s findings and the environmental legality of the petrol pump’s siting but also delivered a stern reminder regarding the ethical obligations in judicial proceedings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The case originated from the appellants’ attempt to prevent the establishment of a petrol pump by Respondents No. 4, 5, and 6 on Khasra No. 109/1/2, located along the SH 10 Bhopal-Berasia road in Village Intkhedi Road, Bhopal. The appellants filed an Original Application (OA No. 73/2024) before the NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act, seeking to quash the Consent to Operate granted by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board dated 19.07.2023 and the NOC issued by the Collector on 07.02.2024. The appellants contended that the proposed petrol pump violated environmental and safety norms, particularly the siting guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and provisions under the Petroleum Rules, 2002. They also alleged non-compliance with proximity regulations relating to residential areas, schools, and hospitals.

The Tribunal, while considering the application, appointed a Joint Committee comprising officers from PESO, MPPCB, and Revenue Department to inspect the site and submit a factual report. The Committee, after inspection on 07.06.2024, found that the site was at least 50 meters away from sensitive establishments and that the nearby residential colonies (Anjani Nandan Dham and Ramnagar) were unauthorized and uninhabited. Furthermore, the Collector and other authorities had granted the necessary NOCs after following due process.

Despite this, the appellants contended before the NGT that the environmental regulations and guidelines were violated and that the collector failed to apply his mind while granting the NOC. The NGT dismissed the original application on 09.08.2024 and subsequently rejected the review petition on 17.10.2024.

Meanwhile, Appellant No. 3, during the pendency of the civil appeals, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court (W.P. No. 41030 of 2024), challenging the same NOC on municipal planning grounds under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The appellants failed to inform the Supreme Court about this parallel proceeding, leading to judicial scrutiny into their bona fides. This conduct became central to the dismissal of the appeals by the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the appellants suppressed material facts by not disclosing the initiation of parallel proceedings before the High Court while the civil appeals were pending?
ii. Whether the application before the NGT was bonafide or filed to subserve private commercial interests?
iii. Whether there was a valid environmental and legal challenge to the NOC granted by the Collector and the Pollution Control Board?
iv. Whether the NGT had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge under the Petroleum Rules and municipal planning laws?
v. Whether the siting of the petrol pump violated CPCB guidelines, PESO regulations, and the Petroleum Rules, 2002?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the appellants contended that the NOC dated 07.02.2024 was issued in contravention of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and without due diligence by the Collector. They claimed that the site was within proximity to residential colonies, a government school, and a hospital, thus violating CPCB guidelines and creating substantial environmental and safety hazards. The appellants emphasized that the environmental risks, such as air and noise pollution, VOCs emission, and proximity hazards, made the NOC and consent legally untenable. They further submitted that the CPCB’s 2020 guidelines mandate a minimum 50-meter distance from sensitive establishments, which they claimed was not complied with. In their civil appeals, they argued that the Collector’s NOC was granted without obtaining development permission under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and that the NGT erred by not considering this aspect.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The respondents asserted that all regulatory approvals—including NOCs from PESO, Janpad Panchayat, MP Road Development Corporation, MP Electricity Board, and Pollution Control Board—had been obtained prior to the filing of the NGT application. They argued that the Joint Committee Report unequivocally demonstrated that there was no designated or inhabited residential colony, school, or hospital within 50 meters of the site, and that the NOC was in compliance with all relevant environmental and safety guidelines. They also alleged that Appellant No. 3 was engaged in a competing fuel retail business and filed the application with the ulterior motive of stalling a rival enterprise. The respondents contended that the parallel proceedings before the High Court, initiated without disclosure, revealed the appellants’ lack of bonafides and amounted to forum shopping. They emphasized that the NGT had no jurisdiction to adjudicate issues under Petroleum Rules and municipal laws, which are outside the scope of the Schedule to the NGT Act.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 14, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
ii. Rule 144, Petroleum Rules, 2002
iii. Section 25, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
iv. Section 21, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
v. CPCB Guidelines dated 07.01.2020, particularly Section-H
vi. M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973
vii. Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Development of Colonies) Rules, 2014
viii. Section 172, M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, after evaluating the pleadings and records, found that the appellants had suppressed the existence of a pending writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, filed during the pendency of the civil appeals. The writ petition raised substantially the same issues relating to the legality of the NOC dated 07.02.2024. The Court observed that the appellants had already raised issues under the Petroleum Rules and municipal planning laws in their appeal, and subsequently replicated these challenges in the writ petition. The apex court rejected the appellants’ argument that the two proceedings were on distinct legal grounds and held that such a bifurcated legal strategy amounted to forum shopping and abuse of judicial process. The judgment emphasized the appellants’ duty to disclose all material proceedings, especially while invoking the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Court expressed concern that environmental forums were being exploited to further private commercial interests rather than bona fide environmental concerns. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000, payable to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. Suppression of material facts and non-disclosure of parallel proceedings before a coordinate judicial forum constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process and justifies dismissal of proceedings with costs.
ii. When parties raise similar grounds in different fora, it negates the principle of judicial candour and creates an overlap of jurisdiction, which is impermissible.
iii. Environmental litigation must be pursued with genuine public interest. Use of NGT proceedings for personal rivalry or commercial advantage violates the ethos of environmental justice.
iv. NGT’s jurisdiction is limited to matters enumerated under Schedule I of the NGT Act. Challenges under the Petroleum Rules and municipal planning laws fall outside this purview and must be addressed before appropriate forums.
v. The CPCB Guidelines of 2020 and PESO regulations provide a comprehensive framework, and compliance with their siting criteria must be adjudicated on facts, not conjecture.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The integrity of the legal system is predicated upon full and fair disclosure by litigants. Courts are not inclined to grant relief to those who seek to mislead or manipulate judicial proceedings by selective disclosures.
ii. While environmental protection is a constitutional mandate under Article 21, it cannot be used as a tool for obstructing legitimate commercial activity based on personal vendettas.
iii. The use of PILs and environmental forums for anti-competitive purposes undermines the credibility of these institutions and clogs access for genuinely aggrieved parties.
iv. Judicial economy requires that litigants refrain from duplicating litigation across multiple forums without disclosure or permission. Failure to do so may warrant dismissal and imposition of costs.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Litigants must disclose all ongoing and past proceedings related to the same subject matter when approaching any court, especially higher constitutional courts.
ii. Parallel proceedings challenging the same cause of action in multiple forums must not be initiated without prior leave or full disclosure to the court already seized of the matter.
iii. Environmental applications before the NGT must be rooted in bonafide public interest and supported by substantial material. Abuse of such proceedings will attract costs.
iv. NGT must scrutinize the motives and backgrounds of petitioners where allegations of mala fides or commercial rivalry are raised and substantiated.
v. Jurisdictional boundaries between environmental tribunals and planning/statutory authorities must be respected. Violations of planning norms must be adjudicated by municipal or town planning forums, not by environmental tribunals.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment serves as a critical caution against the misuse of environmental litigation as a proxy for commercial or personal disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision is a reiteration of the need for litigants to approach courts with utmost integrity, transparency, and good faith. The appellants’ failure to inform the Court of their writ petition in the High Court—where similar contentions regarding the same petrol pump NOC were raised—was viewed as deliberate suppression aimed at obtaining dual relief. This act of non-disclosure was not trivial; it constituted a strategic attempt to play one forum against another. Moreover, the Court’s observation that Appellant No. 3 had a competing business interest further eroded the credibility of the petition.

The judgment reinforces that while the judiciary is receptive to genuine environmental grievances, it is equally vigilant in deterring those who abuse the system. The NGT’s reliance on the Joint Committee’s findings, which confirmed compliance with siting norms and regulatory approvals, was upheld. The verdict rightly delineates the boundary between environmental and municipal legal challenges and affirms the principle of jurisdictional coherence. Importantly, by imposing costs, the Court sent a strong signal that abuse of process will attract financial consequences. The directive that the High Court should independently decide the writ petition on its merits, uninfluenced by this judgment, further demonstrates judicial fairness and respect for institutional autonomy.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (2010) 2 SCC 27
ii. Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 114
iii. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
ii. Petroleum Rules, 2002
iii. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
iv. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
v. M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973
vi. Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
vii. Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Development of Colonies) Rules, 2014
viii. CPCB Guidelines for Setting Up Petrol Pumps, 2020