Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Retail Petrol Pump in large cities must install VRS within timeline – Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court in a recent Judgement (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others D.D. 14th March 2023) directed the CPCB to ensure that its guidelines for the installation of Vapor Recovery Systems (VRS) in petroleum outlets are strictly followed and all retail petroleum outlets in cities with a population of more than 10 lakh and a turnover of more than 300 KL/Month install the VRS mechanism within the prescribed timeline. The State Pollution Control Boards have been directed to ensure compliance with these guidelines and proceed against erring outlets in accordance with the law.

The Indian Supreme Court has modified the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in a legal case where multiple appeals were made to challenge an order passed by the NGT's Southern Zone, Chennai. The lead matter in this case is Civil Appeal No. 2039 of 2022, filed by Reliance BP Mobility Limited against the NGT's order directing the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards to issue directions to make it mandatory to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for new and existing retail petroleum outlets.

The NGT's original application was filed by a resident of Chennai, raising the issue of non-installation of Vapour Recovery Systems (VRS) in petroleum outlets by oil marketing companies. The NGT disposed of the application by directing the installation of VRS mechanisms in petroleum outlets within specific timeframes and imposing environmental compensation for non-compliance. The Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards were directed to issue directions under various environmental protection acts to make it mandatory to obtain consent for new and existing retail petroleum outlets.

The NGT has jurisdiction and powers outlined in Sections 14 to 20 of the NGT Act, which include both original and appellate jurisdiction. The NGT can adjudicate upon civil cases relating to the environment, grant relief and compensation to victims of pollution, and order restitution of property or the environment. If an award or order of the NGT is not complied with, the person in whose favor the award was passed can seek execution of the award under Section 25 or seek prosecution of the offenders before a criminal court under Section 26.

The Supreme Court in this case has held that the directions issued by the NGT making it mandatory for petroleum outlets to obtain Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate are not reasonable and need to be modified. The Court has also noted that the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has classified automobile fuel outlets as "green" and exempted them from consent management in its directions/guidelines dated 30.04.2020 and 07.03.2016.

The Court has directed the CPCB to ensure that its guidelines for the installation of Vapor Recovery Systems (VRS) in petroleum outlets are strictly followed and all retail petroleum outlets in cities with a population of more than 10 lakh and a turnover of more than 300 KL/Month install the VRS mechanism within the prescribed timeline. The State Pollution Control Boards have been directed to ensure compliance with these guidelines and proceed against erring outlets in accordance with the law.

Overall, the Supreme Court has modified the directions of the NGT and has directed the CPCB and State Pollution Control Boards to ensure compliance with their respective guidelines for the protection of the environment.

M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. V.B.R. Menon & Others

Latest Legal News