Tejasvi Chandra v. Madhu Kamboj

NGT9 Jul 2024IA No. 71/2023 in Original Application No. 134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application challenged the establishment of a petrol pump adjacent to a school violating CPCB siting guidelines. The court observed that the applicable guidelines were operative when the Letter of Intent and No Objection Certificate were issued. Since the District Magistrate had already cancelled the NOC vide order dated 07.05.2024, the court found no grievance requiring adjudication by this

What the court decided

AI extract

Tejasvi Chandra vs Madhu Kamboj — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item Nos.06 & 07

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 134/2022 (IA No. 882/2023, IA No. 292/2024, IA No. 293/2024, IA No. 71/2023)

¶5

Tejasvi Chandra substituted by NGT Bar Association Legal Aid Committee

Applicant

Versus

Madhu Kamboj & Ors.

Respondent(s)

WITH

Original Application No. 267/2022

¶12

Tejasvi Chandra substituted by NGT Bar Association Legal Aid Committee

¶13

Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶16

Date of hearing: 09.07.2024

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

Applicant: Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for Substituted Applicant. Respondent: Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advocate for State of Uttrakhand with Smt. Sonika, District Magistrate, Dehradun (through VC). Mr. Mukesh Verma & Yatinder Chaudhary, Advocates for UKPCB (through VC) Mr. Virender Singh and Mr. Sachin Dubey, Advocates for Project Proponent.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

In both matters, issue of establishment of retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited at various locations including the one at Dehradun pursuant to Advertisement dated 25.11.2018 has been raised on the ground that establishment of petrol pump is not in accordance with Guidelines dated 07.01.2020 laid down by Central Pollution Control

¶21

Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘ CPCB ’).

¶22

¶23

Record show that an Advertisement was published by Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Daily Newspaper on 25.11.2018 inviting applications for setting up Retail Outlet Dealership at different locations including the one at Dehradun, with which we are concerned.

¶24

Respondent-Madhu Kamboj applied for establishment of her outlet at Dehradun by establishing the outlet at Mothorawala near Primary School, Dehradun and also submitted security amount of Rs. 50,000/on 07.12.2019. After selection of respondent/Proponent, Madhu Kamboj, Indian Oil Corporation Limited issued letter of intent on 20.11.2020, pursuant thereto, District Magistrate issued No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as ‘ NOC ’) on 20.03.2021.

¶25

Submission raised before us is that establishment of petrol pump and permission granted by District Magistrate is patently illegal as it is in violation of CPCB Guidelines dated 07.01.2020 which provides siting criteria as under:

¶26

“In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new Retail Outlets shall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters (from fill point/ dispensing units/ vent pipe whichever is nearest) from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential areas designated as per local laws. In case of constraints in providing 50 meters distance, the retail outlet shall implement additional safety measures as prescribed by PESO In no case the distance between new retail outlet from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residential area designated as per local laws shall be less than 30 meters. No high tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.”

¶27

In the present case, it is not in dispute that school is just adjacent and in fact, it starts with boundary wall of retail outlet, therefore, siting criteria prescribed in the said Guideline is not satisfied.

¶28

Stand of District Magistrate was that since the process for establishment of retail outlet started prior to 07.01.2020, therefore, the

¶29

¶30

said Guidelines were not applicable but we find that letter of intent was issued by Indian Oil Corporation on 20.11.2020 i.e. after issuance of Guidelines and District Magistrate also issued NOC on 20.03.2021 when guidelines were already operating. Hence, it cannot be said that siting criteria prescribed in the said Guidelines was not applicable.

¶31

Be that as it may, it has been brought to our notice that matter was examined later on by District Magistrate and vide order dated 07.05.2024, it has already cancelled NOC issued to Proponent vide letter dated 20.03.2021.

¶32

We are also informed that validity of the letter dated 07.05.2024 is subject matter of consideration before High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 891/2024.

¶33

Since, present status is that NOC issued by District Magistrate has already been cancelled in respect of petrol pump in question, we do not find that presently any further grievance survive requiring this Tribunal to pass any further order in this matter.

¶34

However, we may make it clear that after matter is decided by High Court, if any cause of action, which may come within jurisdiction of this Tribunal, subsist or arise, parties are at liberty to approach the Tribunal again.

¶35

With the above observations, both these Original Applications are disposed of.

¶36

Pending IAs are also disposed of.

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

Dr.Afroz Ahmad, EM

July 09, 2024 Original Application No. 134/2022 & Original Application No. 267/2022 Jg

¶41

Tejasvi Chandra v. Madhu Kamboj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tejasvi Chandra v. Madhu Kamboj

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dastak Face the Truth vs State of Rajasthan through Department of Mines and Petroleum

Dastak Face the Truth vs State of Rajasthan through Department of Mines and Petroleum

Dastak Face the Truth vs State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Dastak Face the Truth vs State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary Department of Mines Petroleum

Tumkunta Narsa Reddy vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Telangana

Hindustan Institute of Technology & Science vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Arun Kumar Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

S S Kumar vs

Gurudwara Manak Tabra Prabandhan Committee through Its President Sh Tara Singh Son Sh Jhanda Singh vs State of Haryana

Gurudwara Manak Tabra Prabandhan Committee through Its President Sh Tara Singh Son Sh Jhanda Singh vs State of Haryana

Gurudwara Manak Tabra Prabandhan Committee through Its President Sh Tara Singh Son Sh Jhanda Singh vs State of Haryana

Abid vs

Rakesh Bhardwaj vs

Tejasvi Chandra vs Madhu Kamboj