M.Nizamuddin vs M/S Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.& Ors

3. M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited (for short, `Chemplast') proposed to set up a project for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District (Tamil Nadu). An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) as well as Risk Analysis Report (RA) for the proposed PVC project was obtained by Chemplast and, then, they made proposal (vide application dated May 27, 2002) to the concerned authorities for setting up the said project. The feasibility of the project was considered by public hearing panel in the meeting held on June 7, 2002. The proposal of Chemplast was sent by the government of Tamil Nadu with its recommendations, after 2 accepting the conditional consent issued by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short `TNPCB'), to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India (for short, `MOEF'). The MOEF examined the proposal submitted by the Chemplast in light of the questionnaire, EIA, RA and other relevant documents and accorded environmental clearance to the project proposed by Chemplast on November 28, 2005 subject to strict compliance to the specific and general conditions laid down therein.

5. The District Coastal Zone Management Committee in its meeting held on June 7, 2005 considered the proposal of Chemplast for setting up of MTF including the conveyance 3 mains and resolved to recommend to the Tamil Nadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA) to consider in principle clearance for the following facilities:

7. Pursuant thereto, the Director, Department of Environment, Government of Tamil Nadu considered the resolution dated October 17, 2005 of the TNSCZMA and forwarded the proposal to the state government by his communication dated October 28, 2005.

9. Chemplast submitted further application to the MOEF on November 14, 2005. The MOEF, then, considered the proposal involving the activities namely, (i) construction of island jetty at 1000 meters from the shoreline; (ii) laying of 6 sub-sea pipelines from jetty to landfall point; (iii) construction of port office with communication facilities; and (iv) laying of onshore piping from landfall point to the CRZ area and thereon to the plant. The MOEF took into consideration, inter alia, that the MTF will be located offshore of Chitrapettai village; that the landfall point will be at Chitrapettai village, which is 2500 meters from the PVC plant; that the total length of the pipelines onshore will be 3500 meters; that the offshore pipelines and the onshore pipelines will be laid in a covered RCC trench; that the island jetty would be consisting of an operating platform, berthing dolphins, mooring dolphins and interconnecting walkway; that the platform and dolphins will be RCC structures suitable for open sea marine service; that sub sea pipelines will be laid with proper insulation and mechanical protection; that piping design would also take into effect stresses arising out of risers, temperature variation, buckling, buoyancy and sea bed erosion. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts and aspects, the MOEF granted environmental clearance on December 19, 2005 under the provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (for short, `1991 Notification') as amended from time to 7 time for construction of revetment for setting up of MTF on the specific and general conditions set out therein including all the conditions stipulated by the government of Tamil Nadu in the letter dated November 9, 2005 and recommendations of the TNSCZMA.

12. Chemplast made an application on February 6, 2008 to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Vellar Basin Division, WRO, Vridhachalam (for short, `Executive Engineer') seeking permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. The Executive Engineer granted permission on February 27, 2008 subject to the conditions set out therein. In less than a month on March 19, 2008, the Executive Engineer, cancelled the aforesaid permission observing that VCM may cause pollution and health hazard to the public.

13. The order cancelling permission was challenged by Chemplast by filing writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court allowed writ petition on July 18, 2008 and set aside the order of the Executive Engineer passed on March 19, 2008 revoking the permission granted on February 27, 2008. It was then that the appellant - M. Nizamudeen - filed PIL before the Madras High Court praying therein that the order passed by the Executive Engineer on 9 February 27, 2008 be quashed and Chemplast be directed to forebear from laying of pipelines for drawing VCM raw-material from jetty to their plant in Semmankuppam village. In the writ petition, M. Nizamudeen did not challenge environmental clearances granted by MOEF on November 28, 2005 and December 19, 2005. The High Court, vide its Judgment dated October 31, 2008, dismissed the writ petition which is subject matter of challenge in the civil appeal.

Substituted by Notification No. S.O. No. 636 (E), dated 30-05-2003. 20 recognized by it suggesting environmental safeguard measures required to be taken for minimizing damage to corals and associated biodiversity.] (3) (i) The coastal States and Union Territory Administrations shall prepare, within a period of one year from the date of this Notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans identifying and classifying the CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance with the guidelines given in Annexures-I and II of the Notification and obtain approval (with or without modifications) of the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment & Forests;

34. In view of our foregoing discussion in respect of the two core issues, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the objection raised by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the Chemplast about the maintainability of PILs and that the petitioners have been instigated and set up by a corporate rival - Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited.

35. By way of footnote, we may observe that the project has been established by investing huge amount of about Rs. 600 crores and has already been commissioned after obtaining necessary approvals and, therefore, it shall not be in the interest of justice nor in the public interest now to interfere with the project. The alternative solution suggested by 32 Dr. Rajeev Dhavan for carrying VCM across Uppanar river to the plant is noted to be rejected.

36. In the result, Civil Appeal and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 130 of 2009 are dismissed. Writ Petition Nos. 37043 of 2006, 8125 of 2007 and 23122 of 2007 filed before Madras High Court and transferred to this Court are dismissed. Transfer Petitions and I.A. No. 7 stand disposed of. I.A. No. 4 filed by the appellant - M. Nizamudeen - for initiating proceedings for perjury against the MOEF is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.