The National Green Tribunal has reinforced the mandatory nature of environmental siting norms for fuel stations, holding that proximity to surface water bodies - even seasonal ones - cannot be overlooked under CPCB guidelines. This judgment establishes a strict, non-negotiable buffer zone requirement that overrides claims of dryness or lack of immediate contamination.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, a local landowner, challenged the establishment of a fuel station on Survey No. 520/1 in Otthakkalmandapam Village, Coimbatore, adjacent to Survey No. 519/2, a water body classified as an "Odai" in revenue records. The Odai serves as a source of irrigation for nearby agricultural lands and is protected under environmental norms despite being dry for most of the year.
Procedural History
- August 2021: Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and landowner R. Gayathri Devi applied for NOC to establish the fuel station.
- September 2023: Fuel station commenced operations after obtaining PESO licenses and other approvals.
- 2023: Applicant filed Original Application No. 158 of 2023 before the NGT Southern Zone, alleging violation of CPCB siting guidelines.
- December 2024: TNPCB and Revenue Department submitted field reports confirming distances between fuel dispensing units and the Odai.
The Parties' Positions
- Applicant: Argued that the fuel station violates CPCB’s 50-meter buffer rule for surface water bodies, regardless of seasonal flow.
- Respondents (IOCL & Landowner): Claimed compliance, citing distances of 56 - 66 meters from storage tanks, and emphasized that the Odai is dry for most of the year.
- CPCB & TNPCB: Acknowledged the addendum of 16.08.2021 but noted failure to conduct mandatory pre- and post-installation soil and groundwater monitoring.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought closure of the fuel station, environmental compensation, and mandatory remediation of the Odai, including desilting and greenbelt development.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether CPCB’s 50-meter siting criterion for surface water bodies, as mandated in its addendum dated 16.08.2021, applies to water bodies that are dry for most of the year, and whether operational compliance can be claimed based on distance measurements from storage tanks rather than dispensing units.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on CPCB’s addendum dated 16.08.2021, which explicitly requires a 50-meter buffer from "all surface water bodies irrespective of utility," including streams, canals, and "Odais" as per revenue records. The petitioner argued that the proximity of 40.8 meters from the nearest dispensing unit constitutes a clear violation, regardless of seasonal flow. Citing Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon, the petitioner emphasized that the Supreme Court had directed strict adherence to these guidelines.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the Odai is a dry canal with no perennial flow, and therefore should not be treated as a "surface water body" under environmental norms. They cited distances from underground storage tanks (56 - 66 meters) as compliant, arguing that the CPCB guidelines primarily target spill risks from tanks, not dispensing units. They also claimed that approvals were obtained in good faith from competent authorities.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a rigorous interpretation of the CPCB guidelines and addendum, rejecting the respondents’ argument that seasonal dryness negates protection. The Court held that the guidelines explicitly protect "all surface water bodies irrespective of utility," and revenue records classify the Odai as a protected water channel. The Court emphasized that the guidelines are preventive in nature, designed to avert contamination before it occurs, not merely to respond to pollution.
"The siting criterion is to be implemented for all new petrol pumps where construction by OMCs starts post the issuance of these guidelines."
The Court noted that the dispensing units, not the storage tanks, are the primary source of vapor emissions and spill risks during refueling. The 40.8-meter distance from the nearest dispensing unit falls short of the 50-meter mandate. The respondents’ reliance on PESO approvals was dismissed as irrelevant, since environmental norms under CPCB are independent of explosive safety clearances.
The Court further held that the failure to conduct mandatory pre- and post-installation soil and groundwater monitoring - as required under Annexure-J of the addendum - constitutes an independent violation. The Tribunal distinguished this case from those involving older installations, noting that the fuel station was commissioned after the guidelines came into force, making compliance non-optional.
The Court also affirmed the Supreme Court’s directive in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon, reinforcing that CPCB guidelines are binding and enforceable, and that State Pollution Control Boards must act against violations without delay.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The NGT held that the fuel station violated CPCB’s 50-meter buffer requirement from surface water bodies, regardless of seasonal flow. The Court directed implementation of additional safety measures, mandatory environmental monitoring, and remediation of the Odai through desilting and greenbelt development, while imposing no closure order due to the station’s operational status and lack of proven contamination.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Buffer Distance Is Non-Negotiable, Even for Seasonal Water Bodies
- Practitioners must now treat all water bodies listed in revenue records as protected under CPCB guidelines, irrespective of current water presence.
- Distance must be measured from the nearest dispensing unit, not storage tanks, as these are the primary emission points.
- Claims of "dryness" or "non-perennial flow" are legally insufficient to bypass the 50-meter rule.
Pre-Installation Monitoring Is Mandatory, Not Optional
- Soil and groundwater testing must be conducted before commissioning any new fuel station within 100 meters of a surface water body.
- Failure to conduct monitoring constitutes a standalone violation, even if distance norms are met.
- OMCs must retain accredited lab reports for at least seven years and submit them to SPCBs.
Approvals from Other Agencies Do Not Override CPCB Norms
- PESO, town planning, or municipal clearances do not substitute for CPCB compliance.
- Environmental regulators must independently verify siting compliance before granting NOC or consent.
- Courts and tribunals will disregard approvals obtained in ignorance of environmental guidelines.
