Dismissed

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

NGT20 Jul 2026IA No. 31/2023 in Original Application No. 28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner (Applicant) failed to prosecute O.A. 28 of 2022 regarding a petroleum retail outlet alleged to violate CPCB guidelines. After multiple adjournments due to absence of counsel, Tribunal dismissed application for non-prosecution and closed pending IAs.

What did the court decide?

Coram dismissed O.A. No. 28 of 2022 and closed pending IAs 31 and 33 of 2023 for non-prosecution.

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No.01:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Monday, the 20^th day of July2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.28 of 2022(SZ)& I.A. No.31 of 2023 (SZ) & I.A. No.33 of 2023 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Chidipi Nakula Suresh,

¶8

Male, Age: 30 Years S/o Abbulu R/o D. No. 3-32, Chenakondepudi Village, Sethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

¶9

...Applicant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

1) The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Visakha Divisional Office, 8^th Floor,LIC Building, Visakhapatnam – 530016.

¶12

2) The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, 2^nd Floor, Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

¶13

3) The District Collector,

¶14

East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶15

4) The Sub-Collector,

¶16

Rajamahendravaram,

¶17

East Godavari District at Kakinada.

¶18

5) The Seethanagaram Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Secretary, Sethanagaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District – 533 287.

¶19

6) The Seethanagaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Represented by its Secretary, No-B11, Seethanagaram Village and Mandal, East Godavari District – 533 287.

¶20

7) The Central Pollution Control Board

¶21

Represented by its Chairman Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032.

¶22

Page 1 of 3

¶23

8) The Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board,

¶24

Represented by its Chairman, D. No.33-26-14 D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada – 520 110.

¶25

...Respondent(s)

¶26

CORAM :

¶27

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶28

For Applicant(s): None Appeared.

¶29

For Respondent(s): Mr. S. Saravanan for R1. Mr. K. Ravindranath for R3 to R5 & R8. M/s. S.M. Kothai Muthu Meenal, Medha Singh & Kabamdailio for R6. Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R7.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

1. The above Original Application pertains to the establishment of a petroleum retail outlet by the 6^th Respondent, allegedly in violation of the guidelines issued by the CPCB.

¶32

2. Initially, Mrs. N. Subhasree, learned counsel on record, appeared on behalf of the applicant up to the hearing held on 21.03.2023. Thereafter, she filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the vakalat filed on behalf of the applicant.

¶33

3. Subsequently, on the hearing dates, namely, 19.04.2023, 27.04.2023, 21.11.2023, 06.02.2024, 26.02.2024, 11.09.2024, 24.10.2024, 27.02.2025, 21.04.2025, 23.07.2025, and finally on 17.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant, either in person or through counsel.

¶34

4. Accordingly, this Tribunal directed that the matter be listed on 12.12.2025 under the caption "For Dismissal/Final Hearing". On the said date (i.e. 12.12.2025), Ms. Anupama Yeluri, learned counsel, undertook to file a vakalat on behalf of

¶35

Page 2 of 3

¶36

the applicant. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 25.02.2026.

¶37

5. On 25.02.2026, the matter was further adjourned to 30.03.2026, as the applicant’s counsel was not ready to proceed with the matter. Thereafter, on 17.06.2026, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, the matter was adjourned to 16.07.2026. However, when the matter was called on 16.07.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant and the matter was directed to be listed on 20.07.2026 under the caption "For Dismissal" .

¶38

6. Even today, when the matter was called, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant, either in person or through counsel. Despite sufficient opportunities having been granted to the applicant to prosecute the case, neither the applicant nor his counsel has chosen to appear before this Tribunal. It is evident that the applicant is no longer interested in prosecuting the Original Application.

¶39

7. Accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.28 of 2022 (SZ)] is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶40

8. The pending interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.31 &

¶41

33 of 2023 (SZ)] are closed.

¶42

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶45

O.A. No.28/2022 (SZ) I.A. No.31/2023 (SZ) & I.A. No.33/2023 (SZ) & 20^th July, 2026. NS.

¶46

Page 3 of 3

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chidipi Nakula Suresh v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Paryavaran Vikash Sangh through Parmanand Rana vs State of Haryana

Parmjeet Singh vs 1. Union of India

Pavit Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gkn Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Gkn Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Manjunath Hirechowti vs State of Karnataka

Gram-Panchayat Kasarwadi vs Maharashtra State Vadar Samaj Sangh

Selvaraj Duraiswamy vs the Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary to Government

A.Thiyagaraj vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Pisati Indira Reddy vs Union of India

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Manjunath Hirechowti vs State of Karnataka