National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30(1)(b), 36 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – s. 2(a), 3(3), 5, 5A – National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures) Rules, 2011 – Rule 24 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – s.25 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – s. 21 – The Principle Bench of the NGT in the O.A.No.147 of 2016 issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapour recovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in the National Capital Territory of Delhi – Thereafter, respondent no.2-a resident of Chennai, filed O.A.No.138 of 2020(SZ) raising issue in regard to the non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS) in the petroleum outlets by the oil marketing companies (OMCs) – The NGT, Chennai, inter-alia, directed the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as well as the State Pollution Control Boards to issue directions to make it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE) and the Consent to Operate(CTO) for new retail petroleum outlets as well as the existing retail outlets – Issue before the Supreme Court; whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers u/s. 5 of the Act 1986 make obtaining of the CTE and CTO resply mandatory for all the petroleum retail outlets across the country – Held: All the appellants have installed VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets – Respondent no.2 had not prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory – The fact that CPCB in consultation with Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines from time to time for installation of VRS – Directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regard to installation of the VRS in the impugned judgment are not inclined to be disturbed – CPCB directed to ensure that these directions are scrupulously followed – NGT in its impugned order had noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green category” and the CTE and CTO was not required – Apprehension on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT to issue directions making obtaining the CTE and CTO mandatory – However, it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory, accordingly directions in this regard are set aside – Instead, CPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the guidelines issued by the office memorandum dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to – NGT has the power to direct the CPCB that it should exercise its power u/s. 5 of the Act 1986 for the purpose of protecting environment and it was well within its jurisdiction
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is noticed that all the appellants have installed VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. It is also noticed that the respondent No. 2 (original applicant) had not prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory. The prayers in O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State of Tamil Nadu only. However, the NGT, Chennai by its impugned order has directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10 lakh population to install VRS mechanism which are having turnover of more than 300 KL/Month. This Court also takes notice of the fact that the CPCB in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines from time to time for installation of VRS (also known as Vapour Recovery Device circular). This Court is not inclined to disturb the impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regard to installation of the VRS. The CPCB shall ensure that these directions are scrupulously followed and complied with. [Para 45][240-F-H; 241-A]
2. What is important to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016 resply the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green” which may be exempted from consent management. The Solicitor General submitted that it is only after due consideration and deliberations that the CPCB issued the said directions. The NGT itself in para 66 of its impugned order has noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green category” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears that the apprehension on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT to issue directions to the CPCB & State Pollution Control Boards to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTE and CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum outlets. The Court is convinced that it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory. It is also impressed upon the CPCB to ensure that its guidelines referred to above are scrupulously followed and once the guidelines are scrupulously adhered to, no direction to obtain CTE and CTO for starting/operating a RO is warranted. [Para 46][241-B-D]
3. In such circumstances, while holding that the National Green Tribunal has the power to direct the CPCB that it should exercise its powers under Section 5 of the Act 1986 for the purpose of protecting the environment, this Court is inclined to modify the impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai as contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the impugned order regarding making it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for new petroleum outlets to be established in future and even to those which are under the preparation of establishment and directions that all the existing Retail Petroleum Outlets irrespective of its turnover to obtain Consent to Operate for the existing outlets within a period of 6 (Six) Months. [Para 47][241-F; 221-D, F]
4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2022 in the following terms:- (a) The CPCB shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets located in different cities having population of more than 10 lakh and having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the VRS mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its Circular dated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCB shall ensure that the directions issued by the NGT as contained in para 69(i) and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. It shall be the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to the installation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within the fresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB.
(b) The directions issued by the NGT in the impugned order as contained in para 69(iii) and (iv) are set aside. Instead, the CPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensure that the guidelines issued by it vide the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If there is breach of any of the guidelines issued by the CPCB vide Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board shall proceed against the erring outlet in accordance with law at the earliest. [Para 48][241-G-H; 242A-D] Gyanprakhash @ Pappu Singh v. GoI & Ors. O.A. No.
86 of 2019; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.