http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1769 of 1994

PETITIONER: Fertilizers and Chemi. Travancore Ltd. Emp. Assoc. & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Law Society of India & Ors.      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/02/2004

BENCH: CJI., V.N. KHARE & S.H. KAPADIA.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

WITH  

C.A. No. 1770 of 1994 & Civil Appeal No 4434 of 2004  @ SLP (c) \005\005CC No. 28455 of 1994

Kapadia, J.

        Delay condoned.                   Leave granted in SLP (c)  .\005.CC No. 28455 of 1994.

       By a voluminous judgment dated 14th February, 1994 in a  public interest litigation instituted by Law Society of India a Division  Bench  of the Kerala High Court  directed Fertilizers and Chemicals,  Travancore Ltd. to de-commission and empty the ammonia storage  tank at Willingdon Island within three months as the said tank  was  vulnerable to major leaks in the event of an air crash, sabotage and  earthquake.              Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd is a public sector  undertaking which manufactures chemicals fertilizers to the extent of  4% of total fertilizer production in the country.  Ammonia is the  chemical used as raw material in production of fertilizers like Urea,  Ammonium Sulphate and Ammonium Chloride.  Ammonia  imported  in special refrigerated ships   is stored in the  storage tank located in  Willingdon Island.  It is pumped  from the ships into the storage tank  at an atmospheric pressure.  The tank was designed in March, 1973  and it was commissioned in August, 1976 to receive liquid ammonia  from special refrigerated ships.  The ammonia stored in this tank is  transferred into railway wagons which carry liquid ammonia to the  Cochin Division of the company where it is stored in a bigger  ammonia storage tank before it is pumped to various consuming  plants.   The complaint of the original petitioner was of massive  environmental pollution caused by the existence of the tank.  The  original petitioner anticipates devastating catastrophe of exterminating  large population of Willingdon Island and the city of Cochin in the  event of a major leak in the said ammonia tank.  In this connection the  original petitioner relied upon accidents which have taken place in   Soviet Union and Pakistan where leakages developed in the plants  injuring thousand of persons.  According to the original petitioner in  the Willingdon Island there is an airport which is in the vicinity of  tank and if by chance an air crash take place it would lead to human  tragedy.   It was further stated that such leakage in existing ammonia  storage tank cannot be ruled out and in which event the fire force,  police, navy and district health authorities were not capable to provide  adequate safety measures.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

        The High Court came to the conclusion that the environmental  imperative is ultimately a matter of public rights and duties.  That  effective environmental protection and improvement is a matter of  legal rights and duties.  The High Court examined two questions viz.  possibility of operational failure of the tank which weighs 10,000  tonnes and leakage of ammonia on account of rupture in the tank  which would result in an uncontrolable devastation of the entire living  population  in the Willingdon Island, city of Cochin and surrounding  places.  The High Court further observed that major leak could be  caused by air crash in the vicinity of the tank as there was an airport in  the vicinity or by an act of sabotage or by earthquake which would  lead to loss of human life on tragic scale.  Consequently it directed the  company to close down the tank and not to operate the tank in the  Willingdon Island.  Being aggrieved the Association has come by way  of civil appeal to this Court.           Two questions arise for determination in these civil appeals viz.  location of the tank and structural integrity of the tank.  Since the  matter is of a technical nature this Court appointed M/s Engineers  India Limited (in short ’EIL’), New Delhi to re-examine all the issues  and submit its report.  The report dated December 24, 2003 has now  been submitted.  It is ordered to be taken on record.  In the said report  EIL has given technical details of the foundation of the tank at  Annexure-II.  Clause 4.1 deals with adequacy of foundation.  EIL  carried out a hydrostatic test under which the foundation was  progressively loaded and readings were accordingly recorded.  After  carrying out the test EIL has opined that the tank can continue in  service in its present condition subject to certain measures being taken  by the company as suggested in the report to further enhance the  safety in the operation of the tank.  Similarly EIL also examined  structural integrity of the tank, soundness of accessories and  connected systems.  It also took assistance of specialized agencies in  this regard.  EIL also examined risk factors including the location of  the tank and in this connection EIL has also considered the nature of  operations and the handling of the toxicity of ammonia.  Based on the  results of various studies carried out on the above items EIL has  opined that the tank can continue in service in its present condition  subject to certain measures suggested in the report.  EIL further  examined chronology of leak history collected from the company  from January, 1985 till December, 2003 and has opined that all such  leaks had developed outside the storage tank at the time of loading  and unloading and not on account of failure of structural integrity.  It  further found that most of the leaks during the above period were on  account of maintenance related problems and such leakages can be  contained to a minimum with systematic planning, monitoring and  improvement in system.  EIL further examined the possibility of  operational failure from connected systems viz. safety valves, pipes  and fittings.  EIL has suggested steps and measures to be taken to  contain such operational failures.  EIL has further commented about  steps taken by the company to implement recommendations given by  experts in the past to contain corrosion of components.  EIL has  further stated that company has undertaken from time to time safety  audits.  The original petitioner has relied upon observations of Dr.  Campbell who has made a detailed study on the subject.  However, his  study has been confined to the documents on record.  Dr. Campbell  has not visited the site at any time.  However, he is an expert and we  respect his opinion.  Dr. Campbell has opined that worst cases like  tank rupture, terrorist attack and earthquake could occur.  However,  he has also opined that containment of small leakage by proper  operational procedure and maintenance practices is possible.  In fact,  Dr. Campbell has opined that relocation of tank to new site will not  solve the perceived major hazard.  He considered the location of  Airport as a significant risk factor.  In the light of the opinion  expressed by Dr. Campbell, EIL carried out a separate study on Risk

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Assessment and has made suggestions as contained in the report to  contain the risk factor.  

       Taking into account the report in its entirety, the conclusion of  EIL is that the tank can continue in service in its present condition  subject to certain measures being taken by the company as suggested  in the report to further enhance the safety in operations.   

       We may deal with the arguments advanced on behalf of the  original petitioner.  It was contended that in the event of earthquake or  terrorists attack or sabotage or an air crash into the tank from the  nearby Airport there would be human tragedy caused on account of  leakage of ammonia from the storage tank and, therefore, the said tank  should be relocated.  We do not find any merit in this argument as  stated in this case. As stated by Dr. Campbell relocation is not the  solution.  We are mainly concerned with two issues viz. structural  integrity of the tank and its operations.  On both these issues EIL has  recommended continuance of the tank in its present condition subject  to certain measures being taken by the company.  The company has  taken those steps.  Sabotage, attack by terrorists, earthquake etc. are  all unenforceable events.  We have to strike a balance between  existing Utilities which exist in public interest on one hand and human  safety conditions on the other hand.  It is not in dispute that such  plants are needed for the welfare of the Society. In modern times we  have nuclear plants which generate electricity.  Their structural  integrity and their operations are vulnerable to certain risks. However,  generation of electricity is equally important and within the prescribe  limits Society will have to tolerate existence of such plants.  It is for  this reason that we called for a report from EIL so that they can  examine the structural integrity of the tank, its operations and the  measures which are required to be taken to minimize the risk factors.   If the arguments of the original petitioner is accepted then no such  utility can exist, no power plant can exist, no reservoir can exist, no  nuclear reactor can exist.  We do not discount such risks but we have  to live with such risks which is counterbalanced by services and  amenities provided by these utilities.  

       Accordingly we dispose of these appeals in terms of the report  of EIL dated 24th December 2003.