MP High Court dismisses PIL against HPCL fuel outlet NOC citing locus standi

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the NOC granted to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a petrol and diesel outlet in Harda.
• The court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the plea, relying on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh .
• The court found the petition unsustainable on merits, noting that the NOC had followed clearances from various statutory authorities.
• The decision highlights the importance of establishing locus standi in PILs and underscores the need for careful consideration of the merits of such cases.

In essence, the court held that a self-serving claim of being an RTI activist is insufficient to establish standing.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent decision dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for a petrol and diesel outlet in Harda has reaffirmed the importance of locus standi in PILs. In essence, the court held that a self-serving claim of being an RTI activist is insufficient to establish standing. This decision may have significant implications for future challenges to NOCs granted by statutory authorities.

The petitioner, Vijay Bajaj, described himself as an RTI activist and resident of Harda district, seeking quashing of the NOC dated December 30, 2024, issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Harda. He also sought a restraint on construction of the outlet, and a direction for a fresh, independent environmental and safety assessment. However, the court found that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the plea.

The court's decision was based on its observation that the petition rested on 'the bald assertion that the petitioner is an RTI activist,' with nothing to show sustained public-spirited work in the area, or that he approached the court 'free of any personal interest in the subject land or its vicinity.' The court relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's ruling in Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh , which held that a self-serving claim of being a social worker cannot alone satisfy the test of locus standi in a PIL.

The court also examined the merits of the case, finding that the petition was unsustainable. The NOC had followed clearances from various statutory authorities, including the Superintendent of Police, the Pollution Control Board, the Town and Country Planning Department, and the Fire Department. Additionally, a site inspection by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Revenue Inspector, and the Halka Patwari had been conducted.

The court noted that once expert statutory authorities have applied their minds and granted clearances, 'it is not for this Court... to re-appreciate the suitability of the site or to substitute its own assessment for that of the specialised bodies.' This ruling was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India .

The court also addressed the petitioner's claims regarding the distance discrepancy between the proposed site and the nearest structure, finding it to be 'essentially a dispute as to measurement on the spot' within the domain of the inspecting officers.

The petitioner had also raised concerns about environmental and safety issues related to the proposed fuel outlet. However, the court found that these claims were not supported by evidence. The court distinguished the firecracker blast analogy, noting that the earlier tragedy stemmed from unregulated storage of explosives in a residential area.

The court's decision has significant implications for lawyers advising clients on environmental and safety compliance for fuel outlets. It highlights the importance of establishing locus standi in PILs and underscores the need for careful consideration of the merits of such cases.

Lawyers advising clients on environmental and safety compliance for fuel outlets should note that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the importance of locus standi in PILs, holding that a self-serving claim of being an RTI activist is insufficient to establish standing. This decision may impact future challenges to NOCs granted by statutory authorities.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]