Allowed

Reliance Industries Limited v. Central Pollution Control Board

NGT10 Jul 2025Appeal No. 26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed Reliance Industries Limited's appeal against a CPCB order imposing Rs. 1 crore compensation for delayed vapor recovery device installation. The Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's extended timelines, as the original NGT order was substituted by the Apex Court, rendering the CPCB's basis for penalty unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.06.2024 set aside; appeal allowed; all pending interim applications disposed of accordingly.

Reliance Industries Limited vs Central Pollution… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 09

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 26/2024 (I.A. Nos. 313/2024,312/2024, 311/2024 & 378/2025

¶5

Reliance Industries Limited Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 10.07.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Mr. Vishnu Sharma AS, Ms. Namrata Saraogi & Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Advocates

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar, Adv. with Mr. Bharat Kumar Sharma (Through VC), Member Secretary, CPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

On the previous date, no one had appeared on behalf of the CPCB, therefore, we directed the Member Secretary, CPCB to virtually remain present today to assist the Tribunal. Learned Member Secretary, CPCB appearing virtually has stated that now the instructions have been issued to all the Advocates to appear physically before the Tribunal and to ensure that they are fully prepared in the matter and they appear before the Tribunal without any default.

¶14

In view of such a statement made by the Member Secretary, CPCB his virtual appearance is exempted. Since the Member Secretary has appeared virtually therefore I.A. No. 378/2025 has become infructuous which is accordingly disposed of.

¶15

¶16

By this Appeal filed under Section 18(1) read with Section 16(g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act, 2010), appellant has challenged the order dated 13.06.2024 issued by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) directing the appellant to comply with the earlier direction of the CPCB dated 15.02.2024 and deposit the Environmental Compensation (EC) of Rs. 1 crore within 15 days.

¶17

Submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that above order has been passed without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice and without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. His further submission is that this order can be challenged independent of earlier order dated 15.02.2024 issued by CPCB because impugned order is in the nature of a direction under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act, 1986). His further submission is that impugned order has been issued in violation of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019 passe in Civil Appeal No. 161-163 of 2019 in the matter of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Aditya N Prasad & Ors, whereby order of NGT was substituted and in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, appellant had implemented the direction of the NGT within the extended time-limit.

¶18

Learned Counsel for respondent no.-1-CPCB has submitted that direction contained in the order of the NGT dated 28.09.2018 passed in OA No. 147/2016 in the matter of Aditya N Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. was not complied with by the appellant within the time-limit fixed by the Tribunal and appellant was not a party in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, appellant is not entitled to benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶19

¶20

Further submission of Learned Counsel for the CPCB is that no show cause notice to the appellant was necessary because it was only an issue of compliance of the order of the NGT.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the CPCB has also referred to the order dated 23.12.2021 passed in OA No.138/2020(SZ): V.B.R. Menon vs. The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. and has submitted that direction contained in paragraph 69 (ii) was not challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, it was required to be complied with.

¶22

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is noticed that NGT in the OA No. 147/2016 in the matter of Aditya N. Prasad & Ors. (supra) had considered the issue of installation of stage-I and stage-II vapor recovery devices at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in National Capital Territory of Delhi. Tribunal had noted the undisputed position about the need for installing such stage-I and stage-II vapor recovery devices, therefore, OA was disposed of with the following directions:

¶23

“…10 Accordingly, we direct that all the oil companies present before this Tribunal must complete the process by 31.10.2018. The CPCB and the Ministry Petroleum and Natural Gas are directed to issue directions and ensure that necessary steps are taken by all the concerned. In respect of petrol pumps selling more than 300 KL per month, the directions must be required to comply with preferably on or before 31.10.2018 and with regard to remaining on or before 31.12.2018. The Tribunal may have to consider directing prosecution of the Chairman of the oil complies for violation.”

¶24

As per the above direction, all the oil companies present before the Tribunal were required to complete the process by 31.10.2018.

¶25

Appellant was one of the parties before the Tribunal.

¶26

¶27

The above order was subject matter of challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163 of 2019 at the instance of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited but no Civil Appeal was preferred by the present appellant.

¶28

Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.02.2019 had disposed of the Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019 and other connected Appeals by extending the time in so far as Stage I-A is concerned till 31.03.2020 and in so far as Stage IB and II are concerned till 31.08.2019, time limit for retail outlets less than 300 Kl spm in NCR was also extended. Supreme Court while disposing of the Civil Appeal by order dated 14.02.2019 had directed as under:

¶29

“ ORDER

¶30

Having heard Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Mr. Aditya N. Prasad, we are cognizant of the fact that by a letter dated 12.02.2016 sent by the Central Pollution Control Board to all the oil companies, the equipment in question was to have been installed in 46 cities insofar as (above 300 KLD is concerned) by December, 2017 and that this has not yet been done.

¶31

The National Green Tribunal's order is, therefore, correct in principle. However, under the aegis of the learned Solicitor General, a meeting has been called in which certain time-lines were discussed so that the aforesaid equipment could be set up within a realistic time-frame both in the NCT as well as in NCR.

¶32

So far as Stage 1-A is concerned, a device is installed at the filling depots/terminals. So far as the Stage 1-B is concerned, a separate device (VRD) is installed on the tanks of the retail outlets i.e. petrol pumps where petroleum products are stored underground.

¶33

Stage 2 is where a third category of device (VRD) is fitted in the dispensing units of each retail outlet. Each such dispensing unit has more than one nozzle and all the nozzles will have to be fitted with the aforesaid device.

¶34

¶35

Insofar as the NCT of Delhi is concerned, the learned Solicitor General has informed us that Stage 1-A has been completed by all the three oil companies.

¶36

So far as State 1-B is concerned, he says a realistic estimate of time would be by 30.06.2019.

¶37

We, therefore, extend the time so far as Stage 1-B & Stage 2 are concerned to 30.06.2019.

¶38

We have also taken on record the undertakings given by the authorized persons of each of the three oil companies to see that the aforesaid time-line is strictly adhered to.

¶39

Insofar as the NCR is concerned, this has been divided into two different groups those are selling more than 300 Klspm and those selling less than 300 Klspm.

¶40

Insofar as the first category is concerned, the time schedule is extended, insofar as Stage 1-A is concerned till 31.03.2020. So far as the Stage 1-B and 2 are concerned, the time schedule is extended till 31.08.2019.

¶41

Insofar as retail outlets selling less than 300 Klspm in the NCR are concerned, so far as Stages 1-A and 1-B are concerned, time is extended till 31.03.2020. is extended till 30.09.2020. So far as Stage 2 is concerned, time

¶42

For this also, we have taken on record the requisite undertakings to adhere strictly to the aforesaid time-lines.

¶43

In this view of the matter, the NGT orders stand substituted.

¶44

The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Pending applications also stand disposed of.”

¶46

Appellant had filed an Misc. Application in disposed of Civil Appeal No. 161-163/2019 with the prayer for impleadment in Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019 and for appropriate directions. Registrar, Judicial decline to receive those applications vide order 10.07.2024 by observing that no misc .application for impleadment, intervention, direction by third party

¶47

¶48

will be entertained unless and otherwise directed by the Supreme Court. Registrar Judicial, therefore, permitted the appellant to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. Such an order of Registrar, Judicial, Supreme Court will not come in the way of the appellant in taking up the further proceedings because no adjudication was done by Registrar Judicial and Registrar Judicial had only declined to receive the application on technical ground since it was not permission under rules.

¶49

The stand of the appellant is that it had installed the requisite VRS in its retail outlet within the time extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 14.02.2019. This is not disputed by the Counsel for respondent but the respondent is insisting that it was not done within the time limit fixed by the NGT order.

¶50

Respondent-CPCB had thereafter issued first order dated 15.02.2024 under Section 5 of the EP Act, 1986 by observing that appellant had not complied with the orders of the NGT dated 01.11.2018 and 22.11.2018 passed in OA No. 147/2016 and had caused delay in VRS installation at 01 storage terminal located in Rewari. By this order, appellant was directed to pay EC of Rs. 1 crore for not installing VRS within the time prescribed by the NGT.

¶51

Against this order, appellant had filed the representation dated 08.03.2024 pointing out that Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019, Civil Appeal Nos. 256-258/2019 and Civil Appeal Nos. 253-255/2019 were preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court had passed order dated 08.04.2020 by substituting the order of the Tribunal and extending the timeline for installation of Stage-IA VRS upto 30.09.2020. It was also stated in the representation that installation of Stage-IA of Rewari terminal was completed within the extended timeline. Hence, prayer for withdrawal of the order dated 15.02.2024 was made in this representation

¶52

¶53

and prayer was also made for giving personal hearing to enable the appellant to clarify the position.

¶54

Respondent-CPCB had passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2024 rejecting the representation by stating that benefit of extended deadline of VRS installation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the appellant as appellant was not an appellant in Civil Appeal. By the impugned order, CPCB had directed the appellant to comply with the order dated 15.02.2024 and deposit of Rs. 1 crore within 15 days. By this order, CPCB has also provided consequence of non -deposit of amount as it would close the operation of concerned terminal in the NCR. No such direction for closure was mentioned in the earlier order.

¶55

So far as issue of extending the benefit of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 161-163/2019 to the appellant concerned, though, appellant was not a party before Hon’ble Supreme Court but appellant was very much a party before the Tribunal. Paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal dated 28.09.2018 passed in OA No., 147/2016 specifically mentions the name of the appellant. This very order of the Tribunal was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019 and connected Civil Appeals by other aggrieved oil companies. Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the order dated 14.02.2019 in the above Civil Appeals had not only extended the time for compliance but had also substituted Tribunal’s order by directing as under:-

¶56

“ In this view of the matter, the NGT orders stand substituted. ”

¶57

Once order’s of the NGT stood substituted by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, parties were required to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Undisputedly the appellant had done compliance within the time extended by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶58

¶59

Respondent-CPCB is not justifying in imposing the environmental compensation on the basis of the timeline fixed by NGT in the order dated 28.09.2018 because that timeline and order of the NGT stood substituted by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019. This issue was clearly raised by the appellant in the representation dated 08.03.2024 but it has not been considered while passing of the order impugned in this appeal. In the representation dated 08.03.2024 appellant had also prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing which was not granted before passing of the impugned order dated 13.06.2024. Even if the appellant was not a party in the Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019 before Hon’ble Supreme Court then also the CPCB cannot insist upon the appellant to comply with the timeline given in the order of NGT in view of the fact that timeline given in the order of NGT stood substituted by order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019 passed in Civil Appeals.

¶60

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal No.1943/2002; Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3664 has submitted that when a law is declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of one person all other similarly situated person must be extended the benefit without the need for them to approach the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel v. Union of India, (supra) has held as under:

¶61

“….14. It is a well settled principle of law that where a citizen aggrieved by an action of the government department has approached the court and obtained a declaration of law in his/her favour, others similarly situated ought to be extended the benefit without the need for them to go to court. [See Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Others, (1975) 4 SCC 714].

¶62

15. In K.I. Shephard and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 431, this Court while reinforcing the above principle held as under:-

¶63

¶64

“19. The writ petitions and the appeals must succeed. We set aside the impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and direct that each of the three transferee banks should take over the excluded employees on the same terms and conditions of employment under the respective banking companies prior to amalgamation. The employees would be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes including salary and perks throughout the period. We leave it open to the transferee banks to take such action as they consider proper against these employees in accordance with law. Some of the excluded employees have not come to court. There is no justification to penalise them for not having litigated. They too shall be entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners. ….”

¶65

(Emphasis Supplied).

¶66

16. No doubt, in exceptional cases where the court has expressly prohibited the extension of the benefit to those who have not approached the court till then or in cases where a grievance in personam is redressed, the matter may acquire a different dimension, and the department may be justified in denying the relief to an individual who claims the extension of the benefit of the said judgment.

¶67

17. That is not the situation here. In the submissions too, the respondents have not been able to point out any valid justification as to how the applicants who obtained the benefit from the AFT, Principal Bench in OA No. 111 of 2013 and batch are not identically situated with the appellant. Like the applicants who succeeded, the appellant was also ripe for the third chance before the amended para 4(a) of AI No. 37 of 1978 was introduced on 20.03.2013. The Principal Bench of the AFT in OA No. 111 of 2013 after clearly holding that the applicants therein were denied the third chance directed consideration of their cases for permanent absorption by granting one-time age relaxation by considering them under the unamended policy.

¶68

18. The respondent authorities on their own should have extended the benefit of the judgment of AFT, Principal Bench in OA No.111 of 2013 and batch to the appellant. To illustrate, take the case of the valiant Indian soldiers bravely guarding the frontiers at Siachen or in other

¶69

¶70

difficult terrain. Thoughts on conditions of service and job perquisites will be last in their mind. Will it be fair to tell them that they will not be given relief even if they are similarly situated, since the judgment they seek to rely on, was passed in the case of certain applicants alone who moved the court? We think that would be a very unfair scenario. Accepting the stand of the respondents in this case would result in this Court putting its imprimatur on an unreasonable stand adopted by the authorities.”

¶71

In view of the above order also, appellant is entitled to benefit of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 14.02.2019 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 161-163/2019.

¶72

In view of the above analysis, impugned order dated 13.06.2024 cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside.

¶73

The Appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶74

All pending IA are disposed of accordingly.

¶75

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶76

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶77

July 10, 2025 Appeal No. 26/2024 (I.A. Nos. 313/2024,312/2024, 311/2024 & 378/2025 JG.

¶78

Reliance Industries Limited v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Industries Limited v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S Madhu vs Seiaa Tamilnadu

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph

Ms Shams Leather Finishers through Its Proprietor vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Atish P Mandrekar vs Goa State Pollution Control Board

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ms Chawla Engineering Works vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr.

Ushakumari.K. vs 1. Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change Represented by Its Deputy Director General of Forests

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas and Ors.

Jeetu Chaudhary vs

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn Over Mining in Karnataka,S Tumakuru" Appearing in Deccan Herald Dated 10.06.2025. vs

Dr Amit Kumar vs Union of India

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda vs State of Punjab

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 62/2024 in Original Application No. 43/2023 of Dinesh Kumar vs