Summary
Appeals against the National Green Tribunal's dismissal of a challenge to the siting of a petrol pump were dismissed with costs because the appellants, while the appeals were pending, filed a writ petition in the High Court attacking the same no-objection certificate on overlapping grounds without informing the Supreme Court or seeking its leave, and the litigation appeared to subserve the business interest of one appellant.
Issues
- Whether the appellants' original application before the NGT was confined to the CPCB siting criteria for retail outlets, so that a later writ petition challenging the same NOC under the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was a distinct proceeding that need not have been disclosed.
- Whether the institution of parallel proceedings in the High Court against the same NOC, without disclosing them to the Supreme Court in the pending civil appeals, warrants dismissal of the appeals with costs.
- Whether the respondents' objection that the litigation was not bona fide and was intended to serve the rival business interest of appellant no. 3 should be accepted.
Provisions considered
- Section 14 read with Schedule I, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The appellants invoked Section 14 to challenge the Pollution Control Board's consent and the Collector's NOC for the petrol pump; the NGT held that violation of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules could not be raised before it since the Rules are not within the scheduled enactments, and that the only question within its remit, compliance with the CPCB siting guidelines, was answered against the applicants by the Joint Committee's report. (¶¶ 2, 3, 9)
- Rule 144, Petroleum Rules, 2002The ground that the Collector's NOC was contrary to Rule 144 had been pleaded in the original application before the NGT and was again taken in the subsequently filed writ petition, which demonstrated that the two proceedings overlapped and that the plea of distinct scope lacked candour. (¶¶ 4, 15, 18, 19)
- Development permission requirement, Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973The appellants claimed the writ petition was confined to absence of development permission from the Director, Town and Country Planning under this Act, but the same ground had been specifically raised in the civil appeals before the Supreme Court; the Court clarified that it has not examined this issue, which the High Court will decide on its own merits. (¶¶ 13, 16, 17, 19, 21)
Held
- Access to justice is inextricably connected to integrity in invoking and conducting remedial proceedings before courts and tribunals; a litigant who, during the pendency of civil appeals against an NGT order, initiates a parallel challenge to the same NOC before the High Court must at least inform the Supreme Court of the fresh proceeding, and should have sought its permission, even on the assumption that the scope of the two challenges is distinct. (¶¶ 1, 19)
- The contention that the NGT proceedings were confined to the CPCB siting criteria was false: the original application had pleaded violation of Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules and non-application of mind by the Collector, the civil appeals raised the absence of development permission under the 1973 Adhiniyam, and the writ petition in turn raised the Petroleum Rules; the proceedings were therefore identical and parallel challenges to the NOC dated 07.02.2024, and the justification offered was an afterthought lacking candour. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Having suppressed the parallel proceedings, and there being reason to believe that the NGT proceedings were initiated to subserve the business interest of appellant no. 3 who conducts a rival business, the appeals were dismissed with exemplary costs, as the Court had warned when entertaining them, to ensure that actions before tribunals for protecting the environment are earnest and bona fide. (¶¶ 1, 20, 21)
Result
Civil appeals dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000 payable to the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association within four weeks; the question of violation of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 raised in the writ petition pending before the High Court left open, to be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by these observations.