M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED versus V. B. R. MENON & OTHERS on 14 March 2023

[2023] 5 S.C.R. 215

M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

v.

V. B. R. MENON & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 421 of 2022)

MARCH 14, 2023

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – ss. 14, 15, 25, 26, 27,28, 29, 30(1)(b), 36 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – s. 2(a),3(3), 5, 5A – National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures)Rules, 2011 – Rule 24 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1974 – s.25 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 – s. 21 – The Principle Bench of the NGT in the O.A.No.147of 2016 issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapourrecovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers,terminals, railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in theNational Capital Territory of Delhi – Thereafter, respondent no.2-aresident of Chennai, filed O.A.No.138 of 2020(SZ) raising issue inregard to the non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS) inthe petroleum outlets by the oil marketing companies (OMCs) – TheNGT, Chennai, inter-alia, directed the Central Pollution ControlBoard (CPCB) as well as the State Pollution Control Boards to issuedirections to make it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish (CTE)and the Consent to Operate(CTO) for new retail petroleum outletsas well as the existing retail outlets – Issue before the Supreme Court;whether the NGT has the jurisdiction to direct the CPCB that itshould in exercise of its powers u/s. 5 of the Act 1986 make obtainingof the CTE and CTO resply mandatory for all the petroleum retailoutlets across the country – Held: All the appellants have installedVRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets – Respondent no.2had not prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTOmandatory – The fact that CPCB in consultation with Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines fromtime to time for installation of VRS – Directions issued by the NGT,Chennai in regard to installation of the VRS in the impugnedjudgment are not inclined to be disturbed – CPCB directed to ensurethat these directions are scrupulously followed – NGT in its impugnedorder had noted that the oil industry is characterized as “green

A

B

CDEF

GH

Acategory” and the CTE and CTO was not required – Apprehensionon the part of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictlymonitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT toissue directions making obtaining the CTE and CTO mandatory –However, it is not necessary to make obtaining of CTE and CTOmandatory, accordingly directions in this regard are set aside –BInstead, CPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution ControlBoards to ensure that the guidelines issued by the office memorandumdated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to – NGT has the power todirect the CPCB that it should exercise its power u/s. 5 of the Act1986 for the purpose of protecting environment and it was wellCwithin its jurisdiction Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is noticed that all the appellants have installedVRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. It is also noticedthat the respondent No. 2 (original applicant) had not prayed beforeDthe NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory. The prayersin O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State of TamilNadu only. However, the NGT, Chennai by its impugned orderhas directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10lakh population to install VRS mechanism which are havingEturnover of more than 300 KL/Month. This Court also takesnotice of the fact that the CPCB in consultation with the Ministryof Petroleum and Natural Gas has issued circulars/guidelines fromtime to time for installation of VRS (also known as VapourRecovery Device circular). This Court is not inclined to disturbthe impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regardFto installation of the VRS. The CPCB shall ensure that thesedirections are scrupulously followed and complied with. [Para45][240-F-H; 241-A]

2. What is important to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016Gresply the automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green”which may be exempted from consent management. The SolicitorGeneral submitted that it is only after due consideration anddeliberations that the CPCB issued the said directions. The NGTitself in para 66 of its impugned order has noted that the oilHindustry is characterized as “green category” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears that the apprehension on thepart of the NGT that the installation of VRS may not be strictlymonitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, led the NGT toissue directions to the CPCB & State Pollution Control Boardsto issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTEand CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleumoutlets. The Court is convinced that it is not necessary to makeobtaining of CTE and CTO mandatory. It is also impressed uponthe CPCB to ensure that its guidelines referred to above arescrupulously followed and once the guidelines are scrupulouslyadhered to, no direction to obtain CTE and CTO for starting/operating a RO is warranted. [Para 46][241-B-D]

3. In such circumstances, while holding that the NationalGreen Tribunal has the power to direct the CPCB that it shouldexercise its powers under Section 5 of the Act 1986 for thepurpose of protecting the environment, this Court is inclined tomodify the impugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai ascontained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the impugned orderregarding making it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establishand Consent to Operate for new petroleum outlets to beestablished in future and even to those which are under thepreparation of establishment and directions that all the existingRetail Petroleum Outlets irrespective of its turnover to obtainConsent to Operate for the existing outlets within a period of 6(Six) Months. [Para 47][241-F; 221-D, F]

4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the CivilAppeal No. 2039 of 2022 in the following terms:- (a) The CPCBshall ensure that all the retail petroleum outlets located indifferent cities having population of more than 10 lakh and havingturn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the VRSmechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in its Circulardated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCB shall ensurethat the directions issued by the NGT as contained in para 69(i)and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. It shall bethe legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boards toensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to theinstallation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within thefresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(b) The directions issued by the NGT in the impugned orderas contained in para 69(iii) and (iv) are set aside. Instead, theCPCB directed to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boardsto ensure that the guidelines issued by it vide the OfficeMemorandum dated 07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If thereis breach of any of the guidelines issued by the CPCB vide OfficeBMemorandum dated 07.01.2020, then the concerned StatePollution Control Board shall proceed against the erring outletin accordance with law at the earliest. [Para 48][241-G-H; 242- A-D]

Gyanprakhash @ Pappu Singh v. GoI & Ors. O.A. No.C86 of 2019; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbaiv. Ankita Sinha 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897 – referredto.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 421 of2022.D

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2021 of the NationalGreen Tribunal Southern Zone, Chennai, Tamil Nadu in OriginalApplication No. 138 of 2020 (S.Z.).

WithECivil Appeal Nos. 494, 1695, 2039, 1758 and 1912 of 2022

Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M Nataraj, ASG, Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG,Jay Savla, Pinaki Mishra, A Sirajudeen, Sr. Advs., T. Sundar Ramanathan,Vivek Pandey, Ms. Sukanya Viswanathan, Ms. Aastha Sardana, SanjayKapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Surya Prakash, Arjun Bhatia, BalajiFSrinivasan, Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Rahul Gupta, Prabhat Chaurasia, K.R. Sasiprabhu, Vishnu Sharma, Tushar Bhardwaj, Prakhar Agarwal,Baijnath Patel, Keshari, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti,Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit Dwivedi, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. TanviAnand, Saurabh Mishra, Rakesh Chander, Nirbhay Tewari, AbhishekPandey, Ms. Priya Kaushik, Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Vinayak Sharma,GAkshay Amritanshu, Ishaan Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Sanjay Kapur,Ms. Megha Karnwal, Surya Prakash, Arjun Bhatia, Ms. Akshata Joshi,Advs. for the appearing parties.

Respondent-in-person

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J. B. PARDIWALA, J.

Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the sameand the challenge is also to the self same order passed by the NationalGreen Tribunal, Southern Zone, Chennai, (for short, “NGT, Chennai”),those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed ofby this common judgment and order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Civil Appeal No. 2039 of2022 is treated as the lead matter.

3. This appeal is filed by an oil marketing company viz. the RelianceBP Mobility Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and isdirected against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2021 passed by theNGT, Chennai in the Original Application No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) insofaras the impugned order directs the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)as well as the State Pollution Control Boards to issue directions to makeit mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish (“CTE”) and the Consent toOperate (“CTO”) for new retail petroleum outlets as well as the existingretail petroleum outlets.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. It appears from the materials on record that the respondentNo. 2 herein Mr. V.B.R. Menon, a resident of Chennai, filed the OriginalApplication No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) before the NGT, Chennai raising theissue in regard to the non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS)in the petroleum outlets by the oil marketing companies (OMCs). In theOriginal Application No. 138 of 2020, the applicant (respondent No. 2herein) prayed for the following reliefs:- “Reliefs:

A. Injunct the respondents 5 to 9 from commissioning and operatingany new petroleum retail outlets in Tamil Nadu without installingVapour Recovery Systems, Stage 1 and 2 in good workingcondition, pending disposal of this application and

B. Pass such further order or orders as may fit proper andnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case A

B

CD

EF

G

APrayer

A. Direct the respondent oil marketing companies R-5 to R-9 toinstall and operate Vapour Recovery Systems, Stage 1 and 2, ingood working condition before opening and commissioning of anynew petroleum retail outlets in Tamil Nadu.

B

B. Direct the respondent oil marketing companies R-5 to R-9 toinstall and operate Vapour Recovery Systems Stage 1 and 2, in allthe existing petroleum outlets in Tamil Nadu within a time scheduleto be prescribed by this Hon’ble Tribunal for each city, town andrural area situated in Tamil Nadu.

C

C. Pass such further order or orders as may be fit proper andnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and thusrender justice.”

5. The basis for filing of the original application as aforesaid beforethe NGT, Chennai was the order passed by the Principal Bench of theDNGT in the Original Application No. 147 of 2016 wherein the PrincipalBench of the NGT issued directions to install Stage-I and Stage-II vapourrecovery devices (VRD) at all fuel stations, distribution centers, terminals,railway loading/unloading facilities and airports in the National CapitalTerritory of Delhi. Vide order dated 28.09.2018 passed in the O.A. No.E147 of 2016 by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, thetime line of installation of VRD was extended.

6. The NGT, Chennai adjudicated the O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ)and disposed of the same vide order dated 23.12.2021 by issuing thefollowing directions:- F“69. In the result, this application is disposed of as follows:-

i. We made it clear that all the Retail Petroleum Outlets which arelocated in cities having more than 10 Lakh population should haveinstalled the VRS mechanism which are having turnover of morethan 300 KL/Month and above, as insisted by the Central PollutionControl Board in consultation with the Ministry of Petroleum andNatural Gas as per circular dated 12.12.2016. If any of the RetailPetroleum Outlets had not installed the same within the time framefixed by the CPCB or extended by the Hon’ble Apex Court in thisregard, then CPCB is directed to take appropriate action againstthose petroleum outlets/storage depot which have not complied G

H

with the same by imposing environmental compensation as directedby the Principal Bench of National Green Tribunal, New Delhi inO.A. No.147 of 2016 (Aditya N. Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors.).

ii. As regards the new petroleum outlets of Stage 1 and Stage 2(having 100 KL/Month to 300 KL/Month) and for Stage 1A(Storage depots) are concerned, the same will have to be installedwithin the extended time fixed by the CPCB both by public sectorundertaking and private sector undertaking and if there is anyviolation found, then they are directed to take appropriate actionfor such violation as directed by the Principal Bench of NationalGreen Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No.147 of 2016 (Aditya N.Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.).

iii. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) as well as theState Pollution Control Boards are directed to issue direction underSection 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Section18 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to make itmandatory to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operatefor new petroleum outlets to be established in future and even tothose which are under the preparation of establishment, but notstarted construction as has been done by the State Pollution ControlBoard, Kerala and such a direction should be issued within a periodof 3 (Three) months and till then, all the new Retail PetroleumOutlets are directed to apply for Consent to Establish and Consentto Operate before its establishment.

iv. We also direct all the existing Retail Petroleum Outletsirrespective of its turnover to obtain Consent to Operate for theexisting outlets within a period of 6 (Six) Months. If it is notobtained, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board isdirected to take appropriate action against such petrol pumps inaccordance with law.

v. Considering the circumstances, parties are directed to bear theirrespective cost in the application.

vi. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to theMinistry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEF&CC),Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, Integrated Regional A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

AOffice of the Central Pollution Control Board, Bangalore andChennai, State Pollution Control Boards of Tamil Nadu, Kerala,Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and also to the PollutionControl Committee of Union Territory of Puducherry for theirinformation and compliance of the direction.”

B7. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid directions issued by theNGT, Chennai, the appellant is here before this Court.

8. The other oil marketing companies (OMCs) before this Courtseeking to challenge the very self same order passed by the NGT are :(1) M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2) M/s Hindustan PetroleumCCorporation Limited; (3) M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,(4) M/s Nayara Energy Limited, and (5) M/s Shell India Markets PrivateLtd.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant:

9. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of theDappellant herein submitted that it does not seek to challenge the directionscontained in para 69(i) and 69(ii) resply of the impugned order i.e.regarding the installation of the VRS/VRD. The learned counsel wouldlike to confine his challenge only to the direction issued in para 69(iii)and para 69(iv) resply referred to above i.e. in regard to the Consent toEEstablish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO).

10. The learned counsel submitted that the present appeal givesrise to three substantial questions of law which read thus:-

A. Whether the NGT can issue directions which are in the natureof legislative functions?FB. Whether the public sector and private sector OMCs and/orROs (Retail Outlets) are required to obtain Consent to Establishand/or Consent to Operate for operation, establishment andcarrying on the business of ROs?

C. Whether the NGT can impose requirement of obtaining anGadditional approval merely to provide for a regulating mechanismto supervise compliance of the existing guidelines issued by theCPCB?

11. The learned counsel submitted that the directions issued inpara 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of the impugned order are legislative inH

nature and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT. He would submitthat the directions issued by the NGT, Chennai to the CPCB making itmandatory to obtain CTE and CTO for ROs would amount to enactinga law under the guise of judicial order. It was further submitted thatthere is no rational basis to issue the directions making it mandatory forthe ROs to obtain CTE and/or CTO. According to the learned counsel,the only basis for the NGT to issue such directions is to ensure properregulatory mechanism and/or to secure compliance of the guidelinesissued by the CPCB regarding installation of VRS, etc. It was alsosubmitted that the impugned directions are directly in conflict with theobject with which the reclassification of industries has been done by theCPCB. It was pointed out that the petroleum retail outlets fall within thegreen zone and for any industry falling within the green zone, it is notmandatory to obtain CTO and/or CTE. It was further submitted that theprocess of setting up of a RO requires obtaining of numerous approvalsand the same takes a considerable period of time. For instance, evenprior to the construction of ROs, the OMCs are required to obtainapprovals from inter alia (1) Petroleum & Explosives SafetyOrganisation (PESO), (2) Town and Country Planning Officers, (3)National Highway Authority of India, (4) District/Divisional ForestOfficer/Regional Forest Officer, (5) approvals from the State Cabinet,etc. Furthermore, the OMCs are also required to obtain No-ObjectionCertificate from the concerned District Magistrate. Such NOC fromthe District Magistrate comprises of approvals from various authorities,such as – the fire department, Police Department, PWD, Health andSafety, concerned Municipality and/or any other authority that the DistrictMagistrate may consider necessary. Thereafter, upon construction ofthe ROs, the OMCs are required to obtain final approvals from inter aliaPESO, National Highway Authority of India, Legal MetrologyDepartment Labour Department and the concerned Municipality. Thetimelines for some of the aforesaid approvals range over 120 to 240days. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, by makingit mandatory to obtain the CTO and CTE for setting up/operating a ROwould cause lot of hardship and also delay the setting of ROs.

12. The learned counsel laid much stress on the fact that theCPCB its vide Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020 had issuedguidelines for setting up of new petroleum pumps in compliance of theorder passed by the NGT dated 18.01.2019 in O.A. No. 86 of 2019 titledGyanprakhash @ Pappu Singh v. GoI & Ors. The guidelines are AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Avery exhaustive and they take care of the apprehension expressed bythe NGT in its impugned order. Once these guidelines are scrupulouslyobserved and followed, there is no need thereafter to obtain CTO and/orCTE.

13. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counselBappearing for the appellant prayed that there being merit in his appeal,the same may be allowed and the directions issued in para 69(iii) andpara 69(iv) of the impugned order passed by the NGT, Chennai be setaside.

–Submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 2 the originalCapplicant before the NGT:

14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (theoriginal applicant) vehemently submitted that no error, not to speak ofany error of law, could be said to have been committed by the NGT inissuing the impugned directions. It was submitted that no interference isDwarranted at the hands of this Court in an appeal filed under Section 22of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, ‘the NGT Act’).According to the learned counsel, an appeal under Section 22 of theNGT Act is restricted to substantial questions of law. There is nosubstantial question of law involved in the present appeal. In suchcircumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prays that thereEbeing no merit in the present appeal, the same may be dismissed.

Submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 1- CPCB:

15. Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General submittedthat there was no need for the NGT to issue the impugned directions asFcontained in para 69(iii) and para 69(iv) resply, more particularly in viewof the detailed guidelines issued by the CPCB vide the OfficeMemorandum dated 07.01.2020. According to Mr. Mehta, what is soughtto be achieved by asking the ROs to obtain CTE and/or CTO can verywell be taken care of by ensuring that all the existing ROs and the ROsthat may come up in future scrupulously abide by the guidelines issuedGby the CPCB. The CPCB has ensured that all the State Pollution ControlBoards keep a very strong vigil on the ROs across the country so as toensure that the guidelines issued by it are scrupulously followed. Even,according to Mr. Mehta, to ask all the existing ROs to obtain CTO issomething very unreasonable. According to Mr. Mehta, the same requiresa lot of paper work and is very time consuming.H

16. Mr. Mehta would submit that it is highly debatable that theNGT could have directed the CPCB that it should in exercise of powersunder Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short,‘the Act 1986’) make it mandatory to obtain CTE and/or CTO.

17. Mr. Mehta in the last submitted that so far as directionscontained in para 69(i) & 69(ii) resply are concerned, the same shall becomplied with in its true perspective and the State Pollution Control Boardsshall ensure due compliance of the same. He would submit that theCPCB shall also ensure that the guidelines issued by it referred to aboveare strictly adhered to by the all State Pollution Control Boards and, ifthere is any lapse at the end of any retail outlet, then necessary actionshall be taken in accordance with law.

18. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Mehta praysthat the directions contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) may be set asideor modified appropriately.

Analysis:

19. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the partiesand having gone through the materials on record, the only question thatfalls for our consideration is : (i) whether the NGT has the jurisdiction todirect the CPCB that it should in exercise of its powers under Section 5of the Act 1986 make obtaining of the CTE and CTO resply mandatoryfor all the petroleum retail outlets across the country?

20. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated 07.02.2022in one of the connected appeals i.e. Civil Appeal 494 of 2022, observedthus:- “Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.

Meanwhile, the directions issued vide impugned order of theNational Green Tribunal dated 23.12.2021 shall remain stayedprovided the petitioner complies with the directions issued by theCentral Pollution Control Board (CPCB) dated 04.06.2021prescribing fresh timeline for completion of installation of VaporRecovery Devises (VRD).

Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing for the appellanthas stated that in terms of the said directions of CPCB dated04.06.2021, Vapor Recovery Devises have already been installed A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain 50% retail outlets by December, 2021 in the specified categoryand the remaining timeline shall also be complied with.”

21. As the principal argument of all the learned counsel appearingfor the respective oil marketing companies in the present litigation is inregard to the jurisdiction of the NGT to issue the impugned directions, itBis necessary to first understand the entire scheme of the NGT Act.

Scheme of the NGT Act, 2010:

22. The preamble to the NGT Act reads as follows:- “An Act to provide for the establishment of a National GreenCTribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relatingto environmental protection and conservation of forests and othernatural resources including enforcement of any legal right relatingto environment and giving relief and compensation for damagesto persons and property and for matters connected therewith orincidental thereto.D

AND WHEREAS India is a party to the decisions taken at theUnited Nations Conference on the Human Environment held atStockholm in June, 1992, in which India participated, calling uponthe States to provide effective access to judicial and administrativeproceedings, including redress and remedy and to develop nationalElaws regarding liability and compensation for the victims ofpopulation and other environmental damage; AND WHEREAS in the judicial pronouncement in India, the rightto healthy environment has been construed as a part of the rightto life under article 21 of the Constitution.F

AND WHEREAS it is considered expedient to implement thedecisions taken at the aforesaid conference and to have a NationalGreen Tribunal in view of the involvement of multi-disciplinaryissues relating to the environment.”

23. The jurisdiction and powers of the NGT are to be found inGSections 14 to 20 resply. A close look at these provisions would showthat the NGT has both original as well as appellate jurisdiction. Therange of powers that the NGT has include:-

(i) the power to adjudicate upon civil cases where a substantialquestion relating to environment is involved (Section 14(1));H

(ii) the power to grant relief and compensation to the victims ofpollution (Section 15(1)(a); and

(iii) the power to order restitution of either property damaged orof the environment (Section 15(1)(b).

24. A person in whose favour the NGT passes an award or order,is entitled to two types of remedies, if the award or order or the decisionof the NGT is not complied with. The first is a right to seek execution ofthe award under Section 25 and the second is to seek the prosecution ofthe offenders before a criminal court under Section 26.

25. Apart from the bar of jurisdiction of civil courts under Section29, the NGT Act is also conferred the overriding effect upon any otherlaw under Section 33, which reads as follows:

“Section 33. Act to have overriding effect:—The provisionsof this Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistentcontained in any other law for the time being in force or in anyinstrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.”

26. Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the NGT Act repeals thefollowing enactments:-

(i) The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995

(ii) The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997

27. Apart from repealing the above two enactments expresslyunder sub-section (1) of Section 38, the NGT Act also contains a provisionin sub-Section (8) of Section 38 which deals with implied repeal. Sub-Section (8) of Section 38 reads as follows:- “(8) The mention of the particular matters referred to in sub-sections (2) to (7) shall not be held to prejudice or affect thegeneral application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897(10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeal.”

28. In so far as the execution of the orders of NGT are concerned,Section 25 confers two types of powers as noted below:- (a) The power to execute the award by itself, as if the award is adecree of a civil court and (b) The power to transmit the award to a civil court for itsexecution.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A29. As stated earlier, the failure of any person to comply with theaward of the NGT is also made punishable under Section 26, withimprisonment for a term that may extend to three years or with finewhich may extend to ten crore rupees or with both. Section 27 makesevery company and every person directly in charge of the affairs of thecompany liable to prosecution. Section 28 makes even the GovernmentBDepartments liable to be prosecuted and punished. Such powers are notavailable for the Loss of Ecology Authority.

30. Though Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 makes offences underthe AGT Act known cognizable, Section 30(1)(b) entitles any personwho has given notice of not less than sixty days in the prescribed manner,Cof the alleged offences and of his intention to prosecute, to file a complaintbefore the competent court. Interestingly, Section 30(1)(b) does not evenuse the expression “aggrieved person”. It uses only an expression “anyperson”.

31. The 186th Report of the Law Commission, submitted in 2003,Deventually paved the way for the enactment of the NGT Act. This canbe seen from the relevant portion of the Statement of Objects andReasons of the NGT Act which read as follows:- “4. The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 was enacted toprovide for strict liability for damages arising out of any accidentEoccurring while handling any hazardous substance and for theestablishment of a National Environment Tribunal for effectiveand expeditious disposal of cases arising from such accident, witha view to giving relief and compensation for damages to persons,property and the environment. However, the National EnvironmentFTribunal, which had a very limited mandate, was not established.The National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 wasenacted to establish the National Environment Appellate Authorityto hear appeals with respect to restriction of areas in which anyindustries, operations or processes or class of industries, operationsor processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subjectGto certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act,1986. The National Environment Appellate Authority has a limitedworkload because of the narrow scope of its jurisdiction.

5. Taking into account the large number of environmental casespending in higher courts and the involvement of multidisciplinary H

issues in such cases, the Supreme Court requested the LawCommission of India to consider the need for constitution ofspecialised environmental courts. Pursuant to the same, the LawCommission has recommended the setting up of environmentalcourts having both original and appellate jurisdiction relating toenvironmental laws.

6. In view of the foregoing paragraphs, a need has been felt toestablish a specialised tribunal to handle the multidisciplinary issuesinvolved in environmental cases. Accordingly, it has been decidedto enact a law to provide for the establishment of the NationalGreen Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of civil casesrelating to environmental protection and conservation of forestsand other natural resources including enforcement of any legalright relating to environment.”

32. From the 186th Report of the Law Commission and the salientfeatures of the Act, the following could be deduced:

(1) The creation of the National Green Tribunal, was in pursuanceof the repeated directions issued by this Court in at least four casesnamely, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1986) 2 SCC 176], IndianCouncil for Enviro Legal Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC212], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M. V. Nayudu [(1999) 2 SCC718], A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu [(2001) 2 SCC62].

(2) The object of creation of the National Green Tribunal was toprovide, what could be called a one-stop-shop solution, for all typesof issues such as Environmental clearances, settlement of disputesrelating to environment, relief and compensation for victims ofpollution and environmental damage, restitution of property,restitution of environment etc.

(3) The Tribunal was to have both original and Appellate jurisdiction,with enormous powers not only to execute its orders as decreesof civil courts, but also to punish those who fail to comply with itsorders.

(4) The Tribunal was to collect a court fee and entertain claimspreferred within a period of limitation.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A33. Under the NGT Act, the Act 1986 was also amended. BySection 36 of the NGT Act, Section 5A was inserted in the Act 1986.Under this Section, any direction issued by the Central Government underSection 5, either for the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry,operation or process or the stoppage or regulation of the supply ofelectricity or water or any other service, was made appealable to theBNational Green Tribunal.

34. The legal effect of Section 5A of the Act 1986, if juxtaposedin to Section 5 read with Section 3(3) will be:—

(1) that Central Government is competent to issue certain directionsCunder Section 5;

(2) that the power under Section 5 can also be exercised by theAuthority constituted under Section 3(3); and

(3) that the directions issued under Section 5, either by the CentralGovernment itself or by the Authority constituted under SectionD3(3) are amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of the NationalGreen Tribunal.

35. We now proceed to consider whether the NGT has the power& jurisdiction to issue directions to the CPCB/its delegates to take allsuch measures if in a given case the NGT finds that such directions areEnecessary in the interest of justice.

36. Section 3of the Act 1986 expressly empowers the CentralGovernment or its delegate, as the case may be, to “take all such measuresas it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting andimproving the quality of environment.........”. Section 5 clothes the CentralFGovernment or its delegate with the power to issue directions for achievingthe objects of the Act. Read with the wide definition of “environment” inSection 2(a),Sections 3and 5resply clothe the Central Governmentwith all such powers as are “necessary or expedient for the purpose ofprotecting and improving the quality of the environment”. The CentralGGovernment is empowered to take all measures and issue all suchdirections as are called for the above purpose.

37. We take notice of the fact that the Central Government hasframed the National Green Tribunal (Practices and Procedures) Rules,2011 (for short, ‘the NGT Rules’). For our purpose, Rule 24 is importantHwhich reads thus:- “Rule 24. Order and directions in certain cases.— TheTribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may benecessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to preventabuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.”

38. The aforesaid Rule 24 fell for the consideration of this Courtin Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021SCC OnLine SC 897. We quote the few relevant observations madeby this Court in Ankita Sinha (supra) as regards the powers of theNational Green Tribunal:- “16.3 The said Rules make it clear that the NGT has been givenwide discretionary powers to secure the ends of justice. This poweris coupled with the duty to be exercised for achieving theobjectives. The intention understandably being to preserve andprotect the environment and the matters connected thereto.

16.4 By choosing to employ a phrase of wide import, i.e. securethe ends of justice, the legislature has nudged towards a liberalinterpretation. Securing justice is a term of wide amplitude anddoes not simply mean adjudicating disputes between two rivalentities. It also encompasses inter alia, advancing causes ofenvironmental rights, granting compensation to victims ofcalamities, creating schemes for giving effect to the environmentalprinciples and even hauling up authorities for inaction, when needbe.

16.5 Moreover, unlike the civil courts which cannot travel beyondthe relief sought by the parties, the NGT is conferred with powerof moulding any relief. The provisions show that the NGT is vestedwith the widest power to appropriate relief as may be justified inthe facts and circumstances of the case, even though such reliefmay not be specifically prayed for by the parties.

21.6 … The above would show that from the very inception, therole of the NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lisbut to perform equally vital roles which are preventative,ameliorative or remedial in 17 (1999) 2 SCC 718 nature. Thefunctional capacity of the NGT was intended to leverage widepowers to do full justice in its environmental mandate.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

IX. AUTHORITY WITH SELF-ACTIVATING CAPABILITY

25.1 Given the multifarious role envisaged for the NGT and thepurposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutoryprovisions, it would be fitting to regard the NGT as having themechanism to set in motion all necessary functions within itsdomain and this, as would follow from the discussion below, shouldnecessarily clothe it with the authority to take suo motu cognizanceof matters, for effective discharge of its mandate.

25.7 The duty to safeguard Article 21rights cannot stand on anarrow compass of interpretation. Procedural provisions must beallowed to fall in step with the substantive rights that are invokedin the environmental domain, in larger public interest. Thespecialized forum is bestowed with the responsibility to ensureprotection of the environment. To be effective in its domain, weneed to ascribe to the NGT a public responsibility to initiate actionwhen required, to protect the substantive right of a cleanenvironment and the procedural law should not be obstructive inits application.

26.3 As earlier seen, S.20 of the NGT Act which includes theterm “decision”, in addition to “order” and “award”, also requirethe Tribunal to apply the ‘Precautionary Principle’ and the statutorymandate being relevant is extracted:- “20. Tribunal to apply certain principles.

- The Tribunal shall, while passing any order or decisions oraward, apply the principles of sustainable development, theprecautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.”

26.4 The principle set out above must apply in the widest amplitudeto ensure that it is not only resorted to for adjudicatory purposesbut also for other ‘decisions’ or ‘orders’ to governmental authoritiesor polluters, when they fail to “to anticipate, prevent and attackthe causes of environmental degradation”. Two aspects musttherefore be emphasized i.e. that the Tribunal is itself required tocarry out preventive and protective measures, as well as holdgovernmental and private authorities accountable for failing touphold environmental interests. Thus, a narrow interpretation forNGT’s powers should be eschewed to adopt one which allowsfor full flow of the forum’s power within the environmental domain.”

CONSENT TO ESTABLISH & CONSENT TOOPERATE:

39. What is “Consent to Establish” (CTE) and what is “Consentto Operate” (CTO)? Consent to Establish (CTE) means the priorpermission of the pollution control board to begin the work of constructionof petrol retailing outlet at any place. At this stage, the ground waterlevel in the proposed site, nature of the ground water, its corrosiveproperties, availability of residential premises, schools, probable dangerto environment from the proposed outlet, etc. would be considered bythe Pollution Control Board. In case consent to establish its given, theconditions to be complied with would be prescribed in order to safeguardthe air ambience and ground water quality and also the soil. The powerin this regard is available under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention andControl of Pollution) Act,1974.

40. Consent to Operate (CTO) means after the establishment ofthe retail petroleum outlets, a certificate is issued permitting to commenceoperation. At this stage, the actual compliance of the conditions imposedwhile issuing the “consent to establish” are ascertained. In case, anyadditional measures are required to be undertaken, further orders wouldbe issued. After satisfying about the complete safeguard to environmentsuch certificate is issued. In case of a new outlet, the company will firstget the consent to establish and after establishment and beforeoperationalizing the petrol bank, the consent to operate is to be obtained.In existing outlets, the safeguards available in their units will have to beshown, thereby indicating & assuring the pollution control board that theunit would not cause damage to the environment. After such satisfaction,the pollution control board would issue a certificate permitting them tooperate continuously. The object of the last direction is to ensure that theexisting outlets are safe not only regarding air pollution but also againstseepage to the ground water and soil. NGT has inherent power to issuethis direction since it is only to ensure the safety of the existing units.

41. The fundamental documents required for seeking CTE andCTO are as under:- Consent to Establish:

• Site plan of the production unit/project

• Brief project report which covers the details of raw material,proposed product, the capital cost of the establishment (land and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2023] 5 S.C.R.

Aplant machinery), water-balance, water source, and its proposedquantity

• Land documentation such as rend deed/ Registration deed/ Leasedeed

• Details of air pollution control/ Water Pollution control equipmentB• MOA /Partnership Deed Consent to Operate:

• Copy of the last Consent granted by competent Authority

• Layout schematics manifesting the detail of manufacturingCprocesses

• Latest analysis report of effluent, solid wastes, fuel gases, andhazardous wastes.

• Balance sheet copy attested by CAD• Detail relating to land in case trade effluent is discharged onland for percolation

• Occupation registration accorded by Town & Country PlanningDepartment in case of area development projects/ Building &construction projects E

• MOA /Partnership Deed

42. It will be in the fitness of things to incorporate in this judgmentthe guidelines issued by the CPCB vide its Office Memorandum dated07.01.2020 for setting up new petroleum pumps. The guidelines are asfollows:-F“GUIDELINES FOR SETTING UP OF NEW PETROLPUMPS

A.Containment and treatment of spillages from fuel fillingoperations at petrol pumps:

G1.Petrol pumps located in areas with high groundwater tablei.e. groundwater levels less than 04 meters shall havesecondary containment by way of double walled tanks orconcrete protection wails so as to minimize groundwaterand soil contamination. It shall be the responsibility of OMCHto properly get measured groundwater level at the site of M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED v. V. B. R. MENON& OTHERS [J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]

proposed petrol pump and ensure implementation of theseadequate protection measures for such sites. Details ofmeasures taken by Oil Marketing Company shall be placedin public domain and in case of contradictory view, view ofState/ Central Ground Water Board/ Authority wild prevail.

2. All new retail outlets shall have underground tanks/ aboveground tank and its ancillary components such as pipes,flexible connectors, pumps fittings etc( protected from leaksdue to corrosion by adopting materials (HDPE/ Mild Steeletc.) with required protective coating, as applicable, dulyapproved by PESO.

3. Any major leakage/ spillage of Petrol, Diesel, Lube Oil (morethan barrel-165 litres) occurs at fueling station, concernedOMC shall report to State Pollution Control Board, PESOand District Administration under intimation to CPCB within24 hours of occurrence.

Operation of concerned underground storage tank (UST)and its ancillary components shall be stopped immediatelyand not be resumed till corrective measures to contain andstop leakage/ spillages are implemented to the satisfactionof PESO and concerned SPCB.

OMCs will be held liable for Environmental Compensation(imposed by SPCBs/PCCs) and assessment ofenvironmental damage (depending on extent ofcontamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation.Consultant/ Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damageassessment and site remediation shall have minimumnational/ international experience of 5 years in this field.Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaningunderground contaminants.

4. All DUs shall have Auto Cut off Nozzles which shutsdispensation of fuel if its level in customer fuel tank reachesfull capacity.

5. Breakaways to be installed for all the hoses of dispensingunits to reduce spillage in the event of customer vehiclesmoves away with nozzle still in the fueling position.

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

236SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A6.Single/double plane swivel with breakaway coupling shallbe installed for all the dispensing units for better positioningof nozzle while refueling does not fall off accidently.

7. In pressurized dispensation, all dispensing units shall beinstalled with shear valves to cut the fuel flow from pipeBline immediately upon accidental knocking of dispensingunits from its position.

8. In pressurized system all Submersible Turbine Pumps(STPs) are to installed with line leak detectors and in theevent of pipeline leaks STPs shall stop pumping fuel fromCunderground tanks.

9. Emergency stop button switch shall be provided on the Multi-Product Dispenser (MPD) to stop the dispensation in caseof emergency.

10. Automation system shall be installed at all new retail outletsto alert in case of tank leak by way of auto gauging systemapproved by PESO.

D

11. All Retail Outlets shall provide overfill alarm throughautomation.

12. Measures for spill containment in fill point chambers andEforecourt area shall be implemented as prescribed by PESO.

B.Check on leakages (Leakage Detection System) fromunderground storage tanks so as to prevent groundwaterand soil contamination:

1. All new retail outlets will have automation system installedwhich will provide reports on volume balance after everyday operation and records shall be maintained.

F

2. Manual gauging shall be done once in a month and comparethe same with Automatic Tank Gauging for accuracy.

G

3. Daily MS and HSD loss shall not exceed MoPNG prescribedlimits. In case of leakage beyond such limits, matter shallbe got analyzed by OMCs and further action shall be takenfor ascertaining the reasons of losses. In case of leakageresulting in soil/groundwater contamination:

H

a.Concerned OMC shall report to State Pollution ControlBoard, PESO and District Administration under intimationto CPCB within 24 hours of occurrence. Operation of suchunderground storage tank (UST) and its ancillarycomponents shall be stopped immediately.

A

b.Fuel shall be removed immediately from underground storagetank to prevent further release to environment. Measuresto prevent explosion due to vapors released due to leakageas recommended by PESO shall be implementedimmediately.

B

c.OMCs will be held liable for Environmental compensation(imposed by SPCBs/PCCS) and assessment ofenvironmental damage (depending on extent ofcontamination in soil and groundwater) and site remediation.

C

Consultant/ Expert agency appointed by OMCs for damageassessment and site remediation shall have minimumnational/ international experience of 05 years in this field.Various approved methods shall be considered for cleaningunderground contaminants.

D

d.Operation of Underground tank and its ancillary componentsshall not be resumed till corrective measures to contain andstop leakages are implemented to the satisfaction of PESOand concerned SPCB.

E

4. All underground tanks and pipelines shall be subjected totest for leaks every 7 years.

C.Policy towards Treatment and disposal of sludge removedFfrom underground tanks during cleaning:

D.Installation, Operation and maintenance of VapourRecovery System:

1. All new retail outlets set up with sale potential of 300KLMS per month and setting up in cities with population morethan 1 lakh will be provided with YRS. YRS should befunctional by the time of sale of MS touch 300 KL. In caseof failure of installation of VRS, Environment Compensationwill be levied by SPCBs/ PCCs equivalent to the cost of G

H

A

VRS and this will further increase proportionate to the periodof non-compliance.

2. Any new retail outlet set up in cities having population morethan 10 Iakh and having sale potential of 100 KL MS permonth will be provided with YRS. YRS should be installedBwithin a period 03 months from the day of sale of MS touch100 KL. In case of failure of installation of VRS,Environment Compensation will be levied by SPCBs/ PCCsequivalent to the cost of VRS and this will further increaseproportionate to the period of non-compliance.

C3.In case of Stage II VRS, nozzle shall be provided withflexible cover flap or other alternative system for propercovering of filling tank and therefore proper recovery ofvapors.

4. OMCs are responsible for maintaining installed VRS. Theyhave to maintain periodic inspections for AJL regulator asprescribed by Legal Metrology. Proper record shall bemaintained, D

5. Working of dispenser shall be interlinked with VRSfunctioning. Online system shall be developed within 06Emonths to monitor status of operation of VRS. In case ofnon-operation of YRS, the same shall be automaticallyreported to concerned OMC. YRS shall be brought intooperation immediately within 24 hrs and in any case within72 hrs failing which sale of MS shall be stopped from thefueling station. Proper records of operation of YRS shallFbe maintained.

6. Work zone monitoring for Total VOC and Benzene shall beconducted by OMCs for petrol pumps selling more than300 KL/ month and more than IO lakh population (in firstphase) by E(P)Act, 1986 approved labs once in a year toGcheck compliance with OSHA norms (Time-WeightedAverage) and report shall be submitted to SPCB. In addition,pilot study shall be conducted by OMCs through expertinstitutions for online monitoring of VOCs.

E.Ground water and soil quality monitoring within petrol pumpHselling more than 300 KL/ month and more than 10 lakh population shall be conducted by OMCs once in two yearsthrough E(P)Act, 1986 approved labs for the followingparameters from the nearest source and report submittedto SPCB:

Permissible Limit

Enforcement agencies including SPCB can collect samples m andaround petrol pump to check contamination F.Measures for protection of Worker’s Health

1. All workers engaged at retail outlets may be coveredunder ESI, OMC dealers shall implement the personalprotective equipment (PPE) m par labor laws.

2. IEC (Information Education Communication)activities should be organized by OMC dealers forworkers at regular intervals in order to sensitize themabout harmful impacts of VOC emissions, G.Audit of all protection measures and monitoringsystem implemented at petrol pumps:

PESO shall conduct audit of tanks and fuel equipmentincluding pipes, overfill protection equipment and alarmsystem on annual basis and maintain records.

H.Siting criteria of Retail Outlets:

In case of siting criteria for petrol pumps new Retail Outletsshall not be located within a radial distance of 50 meters(from fill point/ dispensing units/vent pipe whichever isnearest) from schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

residential areas designated as per local laws. In case ofconstraints in providing 50 meters distance, the retail outletshall implement additional safety measures as prescribedby PESO. In no case the distance between new retail outletfrom schools, hospitals (10 beds and above) and residentialarea designated as per local laws shall be less than 30meters. No high tension line shall pass over the retail outlet.”

B

43. Section 21of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 places restrictions, both on establishment and operation ofany industrial plant located in an air pollution control area without previousconsent of the Board. The legislative intent behind this provision wouldClead to decipher two concepts - one, the consent for the purpose ofestablishing an industrial plant while the other for operation of that plant.The purpose of this Section is to ensure that when a unit or an industrialplant is given consent to operate, the unit ought to have satisfied all theconditions stated in the order of consent to establish and would haveDinstalled the requisite effluent treatment plants and other anti-pollutiondevices to ensure that it causes no pollution.

44. The upshot of our aforesaid discussion is that the NGT waswell within its powers and jurisdiction to issue the directions which havebeen impugned before us. However, we would like to address on theEquestion — whether the impugned directions are reasonable and whetherthe same may lead to unnecessary harassment and cause immensehardships to the retail outlets?

45. We take notice of the fact that all the appellants before ushave installed VRS and VRD at their sites and retail outlets. We alsoFtake notice of the fact that the respondent No. 2 (original applicant) hadnot prayed before the NGT, Chennai to make CTE and CTO mandatory.The prayers in O.A. No. 138 of 2020 (SZ) were limited to the State ofTamil Nadu only. However, the NGT, Chennai by its impugned orderhas directed all the petroleum ROs in cities having more than 10 lakhpopulation to install VRS mechanism which are having turnover of moreGthan 300 KL/Month. We also take notice of the fact that the CPCB inconsultation with the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has issuedcirculars/guidelines from time to time for installation of VRS (also knownas Vapour Recovery Device circular). We are not inclined to disturb theimpugned directions issued by the NGT, Chennai in regard to installation H

of the VRS. The CPCB shall ensure that these directions are scrupulouslyfollowed and complied with.

46. What is important for us to note is that in the directions/guidelines issued by the CPCB dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016 resplythe automobile fuel outlets have been classified as “green” which maybe exempted from consent management. The learned Solicitor Generalsubmitted that it is only after due consideration and deliberations that theCPCB issued the said directions. The NGT itself in para 66 of itsimpugned order has noted that the oil industry is characterized as “greencategory” and the CTE and CTO was not required. It appears to us thatthe apprehension on the part of the NGT that the installation of VRSmay not be strictly monitored by the State Pollution Control Boards, ledthe NGT to issue directions to the CPCB & State Pollution ControlBoards to issue a circular making it mandatory for obtaining the CTEand CTO as a condition precedent for establishing new petroleum outlets.What has been argued before us and also on the basis of the materialson record, we are convinced that it is not necessary to make obtaining ofCTE and CTO mandatory. We would like to impress upon the CPCB toensure that its guidelines referred to above are scrupulously followedand once the guidelines are scrupulously adhered to, no direction to obtainCTE and CTO for starting/operating a RO is warranted. We are at onewith the learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants thatasking the existing ROs to obtain CTO is something very unreasonableand may lead to various difficulties. Even directing the ROs that maycome up in future to obtain the CTE and CTO would be cumbersomeand time consuming and thus we do not find it reasonable.

47. In such circumstances, while holding that the National GreenTribunal has the power to direct the CPCB that it should exercise itspowers under Section 5 of the Act 1986 for the purpose of protectingthe environment, we are inclined to modify the impugned directions issuedby the NGT, Chennai as contained in para 69(iii) and 69(iv) resply of theimpugned order.

48. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2022 in the following terms:- (a) The CPCB shall ensure that all the retail petroleum outletslocated in different cities having population of more than 10 lakhand having turn over of more than 300 KL/Month shall install the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AVRS mechanism within the fresh timeline as prescribed in itsCircular dated 04.06.2021. To put it in other words, the CPCBshall ensure that the directions issued by the NGT as contained inpara 69(i) and (ii) of the impugned order is fully complied with. Itshall be the legal obligation of all the State Pollution Control Boardsto ensure that the directions issued by the NGT in regard to theBinstallation of the VRS mechanism is complied with within thefresh timeline as prescribed by the CPCB.

(b) We set aside the directions issued by the NGT in the impugnedorder as contained in para 69(iii) and (iv). Instead, we direct theCPCB to instruct all the State Pollution Control Boards to ensureCthat the guidelines issued by it vide the Office Memorandum dated07.01.2020 are strictly adhered to. If there is breach of any of theguidelines issued by the CPCB vide Office Memorandum dated07.01.2020, then the concerned State Pollution Control Board shallproceed against the erring outlet in accordance with law at theDearliest.

49. The connected Appeals are also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

50. There shall be no order as to costs.

E51. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Adityaraj Patodia and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)

Appeals disposed of.

F

G

H