Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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