Indian Oil Corp Ltd vs Deepak Sharma - Environmental Siting Dispute

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Precedent Analysis |
| Court's Reasoning | Conclusion |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court | Negatively Viewed by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 7, Cited by 0 ] ### Supreme Court of India

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Deepak Sharma on 23 March, 2026

2026 INSC 278 Non-Reportable

                                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                    Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023

                           Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
                                                                                           ...Appellant
                                                                   Versus
                           Deepak Sharma and Ors.
                                                                                        ...Respondents
                                                                    With
                                               Civil Appeal Nos.4991-4992 of 2024

                                                                JUDGMENT K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. This is a classic case of how a busy body stalled the

                          commencement              of     a   petrol   pump,   thus   frustrating   the
   
                          establishment of a commercial enterprise and the setting up of a
   
                          public utility outlet for about six years. The 1st respondent filed an
   
                          application before the National Green Tribunal (for short, the
   
                          NGT), allegedly aggrieved with the illegal manner in which a
   
                          petrol pump was being set up, adjacent to a gas agency and a play
   
                          school. The specific allegation was that the proposed site offended
   

   Deepak Guglani
   Date: 2026.03.23
   18:47:00 IST
   Reason:

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (for

short, the CPC B), brought out at the instance of the NGT.
2. The violation was claimed to be of the siting criteria for retail

outlets specified in the guidelines dated 07.01.2020 issued by [the

CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) B for setting up new petrol pumps, in compliance with the

order of the NGT in O.A. No.86 of 2019, Gyan Prakash @ Pappu

Singh v. Government of India and Ors. The siting criteria provided

that new retail outlets shall not be located within a radial distance

of 50 meters from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and

residential areas designated as per the local laws. Where it was

impossible to comply with that distance, a relaxation was also

provided permitting a lesser criterion of 30 meters, but with

additional safety measures implemented as prescribed by the

Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO). It was also

provided that no high-tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.

The said allegation was also raised in the petition.

1. The NGT having heard the parties first by order dated

25.09.2020 called for a report from a Committee comprising [the

CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) B, the State Pollution Control Board and the State Environment

Impact Assessment Authority (for short, the SEIAA), Uttarakhand,

constituted in another similar case. The Committee made its report

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
Annexure-6 confirming that the petrol pump could be established

since business activities were carried on, in and around the

proposed site. Despite the said report the NGT found that though

the Letter of Intent is prior to the guidelines that would not create

any vested right when as per the guidelines the proposed site is

objectionable. The NGT relying on the precautionary principle

found that such units could cause environmental damage,

especially from the fumes emitted while dispensing fuel, which

required a safe and reasonable distance from any residence,

hospital or school. The residence of the owner of the petrol pump

itself was found within the prohibited distance. The NGT

empowered the Committee constituted to take a final decision in

the matter within one month. The CPC B was directed to be the

Nodal Agency and till the decision of the Joint Committee, the No

Objection Certificates (NOC) issued for the petrol pump were kept

in abeyance. Representations were directed to be made before the

Committee and the application was disposed of; clearly in

abdication of the powers of the NGT, as has been noticed in a

number of decisions placed before us.

1. Be that as it may, the Committee convened and made a further

report, Annexure-7 and the appellants rely on a third report,

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
Annexure-10. The 1st respondent asserts Annexure-10 is not of the

Committee constituted by the NGT since it is signed by only two

Engineers.

1. Later, the 1st respondent again approached the NGT, with an

Execution Petition under Section 25 of the National Green Tribunal

Act, 2010. By an order dated 11.11.2022, on the date of admission,

without notice to the respondents, the NGT relied on Annexure-7

report dated 08.03.2021 directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar

to look into the matter and ensure compliance with the order of the

NGT of 01.02.2021 read with the report of the Committee; again

clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, found to be

the bedrock of the justice dispensation system, the reluctance of

the NGT to subject itself to the said principles having been

deprecated by this Court, as we will presently see.

1. We heard Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for

the appellants who were granted the Letter of Intent and Mr.

Raghavendra P. Shankar, learned ASG for the Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd, the appellants in the two appeals and the learned

Counsel for the respondents Sri. Siddhartha Iyer.

1. It was argued for the appellants that all statutory compliances

have been made and the 1st respondent who did not have any

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
perceivable grievance by reason of residing in the vicinity or

otherwise, had filed the petition with ulterior motives. It is pointed

out that the report of the Committee clearly indicated the proposed

site being in a commercial area. The play school said to have been

functioning nearby was not operational and subsequently it has

been closed down. The house existing within the vicinity is only

that of the husbands of the appellants who have been granted the

agency. There is no high-tension wire going above the proposed

site and the later report was not brought to the notice of the NGT.

1. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the 1strespondent

argued that the statutory authorities had acted in total violation of

the guidelines and the appellants who were granted the agency

had suppressed the order of the NGT before the statutory

authorities. It is pointed out that the third report is not of the

Committee appointed by the NGT. The appellants in flagrant

violation of the guidelines was attempting to set up the petrol

pump, throwing to winds the precautionary principle and the

safety of the nearby residents.

1. On a specific query as to the locus standi of the 1st respondent

to move the NGT, there was no positive answer from the learned

Counsel, who points out that the bona fides were never in question.

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
However, the learned Counsel was not able to apprise us as to

 whether the 1st respondent had his residence in the vicinity of the

 proposed site.

1.   Before we look into the reports, we have to notice the
   

   decisions placed before us by the appellants. Sanghar Zuber

   Ismail v. Union of India1 dealt with an appeal before the NGT from

   the grant of environmental clearance (EC) for expansion of a

   Refinery, alleged to be causing an adverse impact on the marine

   environment. Having noticed a study prepared by the CSIR-

   National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)

   adverting to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel

   appearing for the Refinery that all EC conditions will be duly

   complied with and due mitigation measures would be put in place

   to ensure the safety of mangroves and the marine environment, the

   NGT appointed a three member committee to monitor the same

   and disposed of the matter. This Court found that the specific

   ground urged before the NGT was the environmental depredation

   caused by the expansion which had to be addressed when it’s

   appellate power was invoked, without brushing aside the

   (2021) 17 SCC 827

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
substantive grounds of challenge merely based on the project

 proponent’s statement that there could be no continuing grievance

 for the reason of the environmental norms having been complied

 with. This Court categorically found that the constitution of an

 Expert Committee does not absolve the NGT of its duty to

 adjudicate and that such adjudicatory functions cannot be assigned

 to committees, even, Expert Committees when the final decision

 has to be of the NGT, the appellate authority which itself is

 constituted as an adjudicatory authority under an Act of the

 Parliament.

1.   The said decision was followed by [Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli
   

   Samaj Parivartan Trust & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.2 Therein](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93358933/) the issue before the NGT was the dumping of solid waste which was

   considered elaborately and various orders passed right from the

   year 2014 upto 2018. Despite the considerable amount of time

   spent on the issue, abruptly, the monitoring carried on by the

   Western Zone Bench was brought to an end by the Principal Bench

   of the NGT on 28.09.2018. The matter was disposed of finding

   Regional and State Level Committees having been constituted by

   (2023) 13 SCC 525

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
the NGT, in another application, to monitor the implementation of

the Solid Waste Management Rules. The aggrieved parties were

directed to approach the Committees to ventilate their grievances.

1. This Court drew a distinction between the expert committees

constituted by the Courts/Tribunals and those set up by the

Government in exercise of their statutory or executive powers.

Those set up by the Government have technical experts, guided

by a delineated procedure as per the statute or executive orders

and were also subject to judicial review before Courts. Reference

was also made to precedents which urged circumspection in

rejecting the opinion of such committees, unless it was manifestly

arbitrary or patently mala fide. The expert committees set up by

the Courts, on the other hand, were in assistance of the Court itself

when complex, technical, time consuming issues often

necessitating field visits arise. Such committees are regulated by

specific terms of reference and their reports are to be filed before

Court which has to be adjudicated upon after giving an opportunity

to all concerned. It was emphasized that the role of an expert

committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is only to assist and

not to adjudicate. The adjudicatory functions conferred on the NGT

as per Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act was emphasized. The

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
composition of NGT, it was found, is carefully moulded to bring in

  judicial expertise and domain knowledge in equal measure by

  having judicial members and expert members. The NGT [in that

  case](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93358933/) was held to have abdicated its jurisdiction and entrusted

  judicial functions to an administrative expert committee, which

  order was set aside, restoring the matter to the files of the NGT for

  proper adjudication.

1. [Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar

   Dubey3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108326531/) is yet another case where similar allegations were raised

   of abdication of powers and also of violation of principles of natural

   justice. The NGT in the said case also constituted an expert

   committee, uploaded the report on its website and issued

   directions three days thereafter, without any reasonable time

   given to object to the report as such. This Court referred to the

   afore-cited decisions and again emphasized on the constitution of

   the NGT as a judicial body exercising adjudicatory functions, in an

   adversarial system, in accordance with law and also in compliance

   with the principles of natural justice, expressly envisaged and

   mandated in Section 19 (1) of the NGT Act.

(2023) 8 SCC 35

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.

1. There can be no dispute as to the NGT being an adjudicatory

authority and the procedure, regulated inter-alia by principles of

natural justice. The first impugned order is gross, for the NGT

abdicated its powers and entrusted a committee to look into the

compliance of the guidelines and disposed of the matter. The

second order is starker insofar as the principles of natural justice

having been given a complete go by and the execution petition

having been disposed of on the first date, directing compliance

with the earlier order, which entered no finding and the later

report, which was vague in so far as the siting criteria in the

guidelines. The earlier order of the NGT, as we observed but for

noticing the guidelines and referring to the precautionary

principle did not go into the facts and merely directed the

Committee to decide on the issue, when the Committee had by its

report favored the establishment. We are also a little perturbed by

the bland finding, without reference to any studies, of fumes

emitted on fuel dispensation leading to environmental

depredation, when definitely burning it would result in a more

onerous consequence. The NGT disposed of the matter leaving the

adjudicatory process to the Committee which has resulted in a

stalemate, leaving the establishment of a public utility outlet in

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
limbo and the entrepreneurs without remedy, despite all statutory

clearances having been obtained.

1. Specific reference was made to Annexure A4, the letter

issued by the District Magistrate, Haridwar to the Regional

Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Dehradun. The communication

lists out the investigation reports of the District Supply Officer,

Haridwar, Uttarakhand Power Corporation, Haridwar, National

Highways S & R (P&B) Section, Haridwar- Roorkee Development

Authority and Senior Superintendent of Police, Haridwar who

furnished their No Objections Certificates. The NOC at Annexure

A4 was issued directing inspection of the Fire Fighting Officer for

approval of the map and implementation of fire prevention

measures, following the guidelines of the Petroleum Rules, 2002.

1. The 1st respondent approached the NGT subsequent to the

NOCs first, and later, based on the report of the constituted

committee, produced at Annexure A7 after the disposal of the

petition by the NGT. Annexure A7 speaks of one residence in the

vicinity which is of the appellants themselves, owned by their

husbands and another residential colony without any details. There

is said to be a gas agency and a play school, the latter of which is

found to be not functional. The report clearly records that

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
commercial activities are observed in the southeast direction of the

proposed site which lies on the National Highway. The high-

tension line drawn is approximately 5 meters away from the

proposed site. A residential colony was also situated

approximately 30 meters from the proposed outlet in the north-east

direction, the details of which as we noticed, are not specified. The

Haridwar Development Authority’s submission that the area in

which the proposed site is situated, is a commercial area as

revealed from the Haridwar Master Plan, 2025 was recorded and

the inspection too revealed both residential and commercial

activities. Based on the said facts recorded and the interactions

said to have been conducted with the concerned individuals, it was

concluded that the installation of a retail outlet under the site at

reference cannot be allowed; on what grounds is beyond

comprehension. The NGT failed to consider the report or its

efficacy juxtaposed with the guidelines of the CPC B. The

adjudicatory authority cannot blindly adopt the conclusion of a

fact-finding committee constituted to aid in deciding the issues

agitated before it in accordance with law; which decision has to be

of the authority and not that of the committee.

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.

1. A third report by the committee is seen at Annexure A10

which finds the guidelines to have been complied with. Annexure

A10 was issued on the request made by the appellants at Annexure

A9. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has vehemently

pointed out that there is a clear suppression of the NGT order

before the statutory authority. We find that all of the NOCs referred

to in the letter dated 19.07.2021 are prior to the order of the NGT

itself on 01.02.2021, except that of the PESO dated 08.06.2021.

Annexure A10, the report specifically refers to the order of the NGT

and finds due compliance of the statutory requirements,

specifically of the CPC B guidelines. The report also emanates from

a joint action of the CPC B and Uttarakhand PCB as is evident from

the caption, though not of the Committee constituted by the NGT,

which as we noticed in any event has a very limited role. Sans the

adjudication, the fact finding even by the Engineers of the two

agencies can be equally relied on.

1. The CPC B guidelines speaks of 50 meter distance from

schools, hospitals (10 bed and above) and a residential area

designated as per the local laws. In the present case, there is

nothing on record to show that that proposed site is within a

designated residential area as per the local laws. We have also

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.
seen from the report that a single residence and a residential

colony is in the vicinity but at some distance which does not by

itself violate the distance rule, since it is not in a designated area

as per the local laws. We were shown the Master Plan of the State,

produced as an additional document with I.A No. 54304 of 2026

which demarcates the area comprising the proposed site as

commercial.

1. Before we leave the matter, we also have to notice that the

second order was passed without notice to the parties and on the

first date of consideration. The report was not considered and a

direction was issued to follow the earlier order of the NGT, which

is bereft of any adjudication. There was neither notice issued on

the report nor were the contents of the report considered by the

NGT. No objections were called for from the oil company or the

grantee, in clear violation of the statutory prescription under Section 19 (1). We would normally have remanded the matter, but

the reports are clear, which indicate no violation of the guidelines

and the 2nd respondent has been unable to satisfy us on his locus.

A remand would further delay the matter which would be

prejudicial to the interest of the appellants and of the public.

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.

1. We are unable to sustain both the orders and less said the

better about the bona fides or the lack of it of the 1st respondent.

The appeals stand allowed, setting aside the orders of the NGT

passed on 01.02.2021 and 11.11.2022. The District Magistrate,

Haridwar shall consider the issue afresh and if required obtain the

statutory clearances as of now and the establishment of the petrol

pump shall be permitted, if in compliance of the extant laws.

1. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

                                      ..………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 23, 2026.

Civil Appeal No.3042 of 2023 etc.