NGT Cannot Hand Over Its Judicial Functions to a Committee and Walk Away: Supreme Court Sets Aside Six-Year Stalemate on Petrol Pump

"The role of an expert committee appointed by an adjudicatory forum is only to assist and not to adjudicate — adjudicatory functions conferred on the NGT cannot be delegated to committees, even expert committees", In a ruling that sharply rebukes the National Green Tribunal for abdicating its core judicial function, the Supreme Court of India set aside two NGT orders that had kept a petrol pump in legal limbo for over six years — primarily because the Tribunal had outsourced its decision-making to a committee and then disposed of an execution petition on the very first date without notice to the affected parties. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and

Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeals of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the permit grantees, directed the District Magistrate, Haridwar to consider the matter afresh, and permitted the establishment of the petrol pump if in compliance with extant laws.

The core questions before the Court were whether the NGT could delegate its adjudicatory functions to an expert committee and dispose of a matter without returning any finding; whether an execution petition could be disposed of without notice to the affected parties in violation of Section 19(1) of the NGT Act, 2010; and whether on the facts, any violation of the CPCB siting guidelines was made out.

A "Classic Case of a Busy Body" Stalling a Public Utility

The Court opened with pointed words. Describing the matter as "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 Court noted that when directly asked about his locus standi, the first respondent's counsel "was not able to apprise us as to whether the 1st respondent had his residence in the vicinity of the proposed site." The Court found the first respondent's locus to be doubtful throughout and his bona fides, in its words, questionable.

NGT Grossly Abdicated Its Adjudicatory Powers

The Court surveyed three prior Supreme Court decisions that had already deprecated the NGT's practice of delegating its judicial functions to expert committees. In Sanghar Zuber Ismail v. Union of India, this Court had held 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." In Kantha Vibhag Yuva Koli Samaj Parivartan Trust v. State of Gujarat, this Court had drawn a sharp distinction between expert committees set up by governments under statutory powers — which have defined procedures and are subject to judicial review — and committees constituted by courts. The latter exist only "to assist and not to adjudicate." The NGT, it was held, is carefully constituted with judicial members and expert members precisely so that it can adjudicate these complex matters itself. In Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, the Court had yet again deprecated NGT orders that uploaded committee reports on a website and issued directions three days later without giving parties any reasonable opportunity to object.

Applying this settled line of authority, the Court found the NGT's February 1, 2021 order to be "gross" in its abdication. The committee's first report had already found that the petrol pump could be established, given commercial activities in and around the proposed site. Despite this, the NGT invoked the precautionary principle without any factual basis, referred to "fumes emitted on fuel dispensation leading to environmental depredation" without citing any study, and — in the Court's dry observation — failed to appreciate that "definitely burning it would result in a more onerous consequence." Most critically, it handed the decision itself to the committee rather than adjudicating the matter.

Execution Order Passed Without Notice: Section 19(1) Violated

The November 2022 execution order was, in the Court's assessment, even starker. The NGT disposed of the execution petition on the very first date of consideration, without issuing notice to the appellants, without considering the contents of the committee report, and directing compliance with an earlier order that itself "entered no finding." Section 19(1) of the NGT Act expressly mandates compliance with principles of natural justice. "The adjudicatory authority cannot blindly adopt the conclusion of a fact-finding committee constituted to aid in deciding the issues agitated before it," the Court held.

No Violation of CPCB Guidelines Established on Record

The Court proceeded to examine the substantive facts — and found no violation of the siting guidelines either. The CPCB guidelines mandate a 50-metre distance from designated residential areas under local laws. The area in which the proposed site is situated is designated as commercial under the Haridwar Master Plan 2025. The single residence found nearby belonged to the appellants' own husbands, and the residential colony in the vicinity was not shown to be a "designated residential area" under local law. The play school cited by the respondent was no longer operational. The high-tension line was approximately 5 metres from the proposed site — not passing overhead. The third committee report, from engineers of the CPCB and Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board, found full compliance with the guidelines. The Court noted that even if this third report was not from the NGT-constituted committee, "sans the adjudication, the fact finding even by the Engineers of the two agencies can be equally relied on."

Why the Matter Was Not Remanded

Ordinarily the Court would have remanded the matter to the NGT for fresh adjudication. It declined to do so for two reasons. First, the reports on record were clear in finding no violation of the guidelines. Second, the locus of the first respondent was doubtful and he could not justify it before this Court. A remand, the Court held, "would further delay the matter which would be prejudicial to the interest of the appellants and of the public." A petrol pump on a National Highway is a public utility — and six years of litigation instigated by a person with no perceivable grievance was sufficient cause for finality.

Date of Decision: March 23, 2026