Summary of Judgment Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Related Laws:

1. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (Sections 14, 15)

2. Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

3. Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981

4. Petroleum Rules, 2002 (Rule 144)

5. Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973

Citation: 2025 INSC 826
Case Title: Arun Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: 14th July 2025

Background

1. Dispute:
   Appellants challenged the establishment of a Reliance BP petrol pump at Khasra No. 109/1/2, Bhopal, alleging:
   Violation of CPCB guidelines (50-meter distance from residential areas/schools).
   Illegal NOC by Collector (07.02.2024) under Petroleum Rules, 2002.
   Non-compliance with MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (lack of town planning permission).

2. NGT Proceedings:
   NGT (2024): Dismissed the application, citing:
   Joint Committee Report confirmed no residential/school within 50 meters.
   Violations of Petroleum Rules fall outside NGT’s jurisdiction (Schedule I of NGT Act).

3. Parallel Litigation:
   Appellants filed a writ petition in High Court (WP No. 41030/2024) during pendency of NGT appeal, challenging the same NOC under municipal laws.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the NGT erred in dismissing the application based on the Joint Committee Report.

2. Whether the appellants suppressed material facts by initiating parallel proceedings in the High Court.

3. Whether the litigation was bonafide or to subserve appellant No. 3’s business interests (running a rival petrol pump).

Supreme Court’s Decision

1. Dismissal of Appeals with Costs (₹50,000):
   Suppression of Facts: Appellants failed to disclose the parallel writ petition in the High Court, undermining judicial integrity.
   Overlapping Grounds: Both NGT and High Court petitions challenged the same NOC (07.02.2024) on similar grounds (Petroleum Rules and municipal laws).

2. Findings on Merits:
   NGT’s Jurisdiction: Limited to environmental issues under CPCB guidelines; cannot adjudicate Petroleum Rules violations.
   Joint Committee Report: Reliable evidence showed:
   No residential/school within 50 meters.
   Nearest habitation 600 meters away.

3. Litigation Malafides:
   Appellant No. 3’s business rivalry (owning a competing petrol pump) raised suspicions about the bonafides of the challenge.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals with costs, holding:
  Appellants engaged in forum shopping by filing parallel petitions.
  NGT rightly dismissed the application as CPCB guidelines were not violated.

• Clarification: Observations do not affect the pending High Court writ petition on municipal law violations.

Final Direction:

• Costs of ₹50,000 to be paid to Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association within 4 weeks.

Key Takeaways:

• Environmental vs. Municipal Challenges: NGT deals only with environmental violations; municipal issues must be raised separately.

• Judicial Integrity: Full disclosure of parallel proceedings is mandatory to prevent abuse of process.