PETROLEUM SERVICE CENTRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by as many as 25 writ petitioners, who are all running Retail Outlets/Petrol Pumps of various Oil Companies at different locations. They have approached this Court with a prayer that the respondents by issue of writ of mandamus be commanded to produce the advisory dated 29.08.2017 issued by Union of India-respondent No.1 to the State Government-respondent No.2 and further that the impugned order dated 15.10.2020 (Annexure P/6) issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior to various Regional Transport Authorities/District Transport Officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh and the order dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure P/7) issued by Collector, Chhindwara to one of the petitioners requiring him to set up Pollution Under Control (PUC) Centres in their Petrol/Diesel Pumps be quashed and set aside.

(2.) Mr. Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid orders appear to have been based on purported compliance of the observations made by Supreme Court in the order dated 10.08.2017 (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.) (Annexure P/2) and the order of National Green Tribunal (Annexure P/5) dated 16.01.2019. The order of the Supreme Court was in-fact based on EPCA Report No.73 on the assessment of the Pollution Under Control (PUC) Programme in Delhi and NCR, which contained various recommendations. Reference is made to Chapter 4 captioned as "Summary Recommendations of EPCA", paragraph-1 of which recommend to limit the numbers of PUC Centres, upgrade them and bring them under strong supervision and quality control. According to the aforesaid para, the Report recommended that the current practice of allowing mushrooming of small time and numerous PUC Centres in refueling stations across the NCR must be stopped. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that what was observed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 10.08.2017 was to issue mere advisory to the State Government for mandating PUC Centres at refueling stations, which cannot be considered as mandatory. Even then, the respondents ought to produce the copy of the advisory before this Court to substantiate as to whether any such advisory was ever issued.

(3.) In the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Annexure P/3, a circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, State of Madhya Pradesh on 25.9.2017 to all the Regional/Additional Regional/District Transport Officers where a reference to the letter No. RT-11021/47/2014-MVL dated 29.8.2017 of the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and National Highways, New Delhi has been given. The opening para of the aforesaid letter give reference to the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.13029/1985 (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.). A copy of which has been placed on record by the petitioners themselves as Annexure P/2. This letter, further, in the second para makes a reference to earlier circular dated 03.10.2015 issued by Transport Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh with reference to its notification No. F-22-15-2015-Eight dated 26.09.2015 under Rule 115(7) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 whereby the (Authorization of the PUC Centres for testing the pollution emission of vehicles Scheme, 2015) has been made. In third para of the aforesaid letter, it was advised that all the Petrol/Diesel Pumps (Fuel Stations) should be required to necessarily set up PUC Centres and in this regard, District Collector should issue the required order. In continuation of the aforesaid order/circular issued on 03.10.2015 followed by another circular dated 25.09.2017, a fresh circular was issued on 15.10.2020 on which various Collectors have now issued the orders, one of which has been placed on record as Annexure P/7 issued by Collector, Chhindwara. We, therefore, have no reason to doubt that the aforesaid circulars and orders have not been issued with reference to the advisory issued by the Central Government which in turn was based on the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra).