Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals Over Petrol Pump NOC After Finding Suppression of Parallel Proceedings

A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard civil appeals filed by Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors challenging an order of the National Green Tribunal and a subsequent review order. The appeals arose from a challenge to a consent to operate issued by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board and a No-Objection Certificate dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Collector permitting establishment of a petrol pump on SH 10 near Intkhedi Road, Bhopal.

The Court held that the appellants had failed to disclose parallel proceedings and had not acted with requisite candour, and therefore dismissed the civil appeals with costs. The Court emphasised the need to preserve the integrity of remedial proceedings, observing at the outset that “Access to justice is inextricably connected to maintaining integrity in the process of invocation and conduct of remedial proceedings before Courts and Tribunals.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(a) appellants have suppressed the necessary facts and there is reason to believe that the proceedings before NGT were initiated to subserve business interest of appellant no. 3. In this view of the matter, the civil appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks from today.” The Court also clarified that it had not examined the separate writ petition pending before the High Court and directed that that petition would be heard on its own merits.

Background The three appellants had moved the National Green Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act seeking quashing of MPPCB’s consent to operate dated 19.07.2023 and the Collector’s NOC of 07.02.2024, and sought interim restraint on construction and operation of the petrol pump on Khasra No. 109/1/2. Respondents had obtained multiple permissions prior to the NGT filing, including prior approval from PESO, various local NOCs, MPPCB consent and the Collector’s NOC. The NGT constituted a Joint Committee which inspected the site and reported that the dispensing unit lay more than the minimum distances from any designated school or hospital, that nearby residential colonies were unauthorised and that the nearest habitation was about 600 metres away. The Joint Committee relied on CPCB siting criteria (Section H, Jan 7, 2020) and recorded that requisite safety and procedural approvals had been obtained.

The NGT dismissed the application as non-maintainable and lacking merit, observing that the Petroleum Rules, 2002 issues could not be entertained under the NGT Act’s schedule and that safety and distance criteria were satisfied. A review petition was later dismissed by the NGT.

While the civil appeals were pending before this Court, appellant No.3 instituted Writ Petition No. 41030 of 2024 in the High Court challenging the same NOC on grounds under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The Supreme Court found that the appellants did not inform this Court of the parallel High Court proceedings, and that their pleadings before the NGT and in these appeals had already raised challenges to the NOC under the Petroleum Rules and related provisions. The Court treated the omission as suppression and an afterthought, concluded that the litigation lacked candour and may have been instituted to subserve business interests of appellant No.3, and therefore ordered dismissal of the appeals with costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks. The Court expressly left the High Court writ petition to be decided on its own merits without influence from its observations.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 826; Civil Appeal Nos. 3263-3264 of 2025 Case Title: Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Prateek Jain, Advocate (appearing for petitioners as noted in record) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Advocate (for State); Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate (for respondent No.6)