http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MS.KAMINI JAISWAL, ADVOCATE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/03/1997

BENCH: A.M. AHMADI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J      The petitioner  is a practising advocate. She has filed the present  petition as  a public  interest petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are the Gas  Authority of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘GAIL’),  the   Oil  and   Natural  Gas   Corporation   Ltd. (hereinafter referred  to as  ‘ONGC’), the Central Pollution Control Board and the Union of India.      The petitioner  contends that  the  high  pressure  gas pipelines laid  by GAIL  and/or ONGC  are unsafe  in certain specified  places   and  are   potentially  hazardous.   The petitioner has  prayed that these pipelines should be closed until  an  independent  enquiry  by  experts  certifies  and declares  that   these  pipelines   are  safe   for  further operation. The  petition was  filed pursuant  to gas leakage from a  high pressure gas pipeline of GAIL at Dhaula Kuan in Delhi on or about 8th of July, 1993.      GAIL was  formed in  the year  1984 for  the purpose of handling natural gas related activities. Originally ONGC had planned the  HBJ pipeline  which was  to run  from Hazira to Babrala and  Jagdishpur for  supply of gas to the fertilizer and power  plants enroute.  This pipeline  was taken over by GAIL  from  ONGC  in  the  conceptualisation  stage  itself. Subsequently, GAIL  added additional pipelines and spurlines to the  HBJ pipeline.  ONGC had also laid around 680 kms. of pipelines in  various locations  of the  country such as the Gujarat region, Bombay region, K.G.basin, Cauvery basin etc. All these pipelines were transferred to GAIL, a health check of all  these lines  was carried out when it took over these pipelines. After  the  check,  necessary  corrective  action which included replacement of some of the pipelines was also taken by  GAIL both from the safety point of view as well as operational point  of view. As of now, GAIL operates a total of 2974.856 kms. of pipelines.      The petitioner  has contended  that the  pipelines have not been  laid as  per  applicable  international  standards ANSI/ASME B  31.8 of  82.  The  specific  averments  in  the petition relate  to the  DESU-Maruti Spurline  laid by  GAIL which admeasures  about 35 kms. According to the petitioner,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the terms  and conditions  on which  GAIL    had  given  the contract for  laying this  pipeline have  not been  complied with. She  contends that gas leakage detection and automatic shutting down  system has not been provided. Telesupervisory system is  not provided.  Gas pipeline  was requried  to  be buried at  least 1.5  metres below  the ground.  But the gas pipeline has not been so laid. The gas pipeline was required to be  laid keeping adequate distance from human settlements but this has also not been done and lastly she contends that GAIL has  not obtained  clearance  from  the  Department  of Explosives. She  has alleged  lack of  experience,  lack  of supervision or  control by  GAIL officials and mismanagement by GAIL  so that  the  contractors  have  used  sub-standard material and  bad workmanship  in  laying  the  pipeline  in violation of  the safety  guidelines. This  resulted in  gas leakage from this pipeline at Dhaula Kuan on 8th July, 1993.      GAIL has  filed a  datailed affidavit in reply to these allegations. It  has laid before us three reports of experts in connection with the laying of the DESU-Maruti Spurline as also in  connection with  the safety of its pipeline system. GAIL has also furnished to us datailed technical material in connection with the allegations made by the petitioner.      GAIL has submitted that it had decided to lay the DESU- Maruti Spurline  which is  a short  line by  using their in- house experience.  They had  given a contract for the laying of this  pipeline stipulating  all the  necessary conditions ensuring safety  of the  system.  The  contractor,  however, defaulted  in   many  ways   while  laying   this  pipeline. Ultimately GAIL  was compelled  to terminate  his  contract. There  is  an  arbitration  pending  between  GAIL  and  the contractor in  connection with the defective workmanship and the termination  of the  contract. GAIL contends that it was this defective  workmanship which  led to the gas leakage at Dhaula Kuan.  In connection with this accident GAIL set up a committee  consisting   of  the   Additional  Director,  Oil Industry  Safety  Directorate  and  two  GAIL  officers  not connected with the project to report on the investigation of the failure of the DESU-Maruti pipeline at Dhaula Kuan. This report was placed before us. The committee has reported that (a) the  area near  Dhaula khan  being rocky  normal mode of trenching using  explosives was  not possible  due to  close proximity to  close proximity  to traffic/habitations. Hence manual rock  cutting had  to be  done. Consequently, against the tender specifications of 1.5 meter soil cover, about 1.0 meter cover  could be  achieved. (b)  The space  constraints with dense  traffic near  Dhaula Kuan  restricted the use of conventional pipe lowering machinery for extended hours. (c) Necessary and  sufficient details of existing utilities like underground cables,  pipes were  not  available  from  civic authorities. (d) On excavation of the leakage affected area, it was observed that the bottom of the pipeline was found to be resting  on a  cable. (e)  Inspection of  buried pipeline route revealed  soil settlement  at various  locations  near Dhaula  Kuan  Park  Area  after  heavy  rains.  This  caused accumulation of  stagnant water  in some  areas. One  of the factors noted  by the committee was that none of the persons associated with  supervision of the job were aware about the existence of a cable underneath the pipe. Hence the HDPE the HDPE   Sheet which  is normally  placed between the pipeline and the cable had not been placed.      We need  not examine  at length the various facts found by the  commitee as  leading to  that accident. What is more important, GAIL  set up  an internal  committee to pin-point the  lapses   and  to   suggest  corrective  measures.  This committee’s report is also produced before us. The committee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

noted that the specifications in the tender were very clear, exhaustive and  adequate to take care of the safety aspects. However, some of the specifications as set out in the report were not taken care of by the contractor. It noted that some of the  construction activities  may not have been inspected by GAIL personnel or the inspection report may not represent the real status of the activity. The committee has commented upon trenching  work and the fact that the cover of the pipe was at  some places  even less  than 1.0  meter although the tender specification  was 1.5 meters. This may be on account of the  rocky  soil  and  the  prohibition  on  the  use  of explosives on  account  of  the  vicinity  of  the  area  to habitation. It  commented on  the defects  in the inspection reports. It  was also  pointed out  that  thickness  of  the compacted padding  on top  of pipe  corrosion coating should have been at least 150 MM. Padding material should have been graded  soil/sand   and/or  other  materials  containing  no gravel, rock  or lumps  of hard  soil. Such padding material bas  not   been  observed   at  various  points  during  the inspection. The report is a very detailed report setting out other defects also. It had made various suggestions; some of the suggestions  being that  (1) GAIL  should  deploy  third party -  Inspecting  Agency  for  such  activities  of  pipe laying; (2)  That GAIL  should  supervise  and  monitor  the activities of  the third  party inspecting  agency  and  the activities of the contractor in respect of the compliance of tender  specification;  (3)  That  no  deviation  should  be permitted by Engineer Incharge; (4) Necessary formats should be developed to ensure total conformity to the specification requirements; (5)  GAIL Engineers  and Supervisors should be given training  programmes and  (6)S(T) GAIL should have own qulity audit  cell for  overiewing the quality compliance in totality.      GAIL also  carried out  a  post-construction  integrity survey through  Sofregaz, an  international agency known foe its expertise  in this area. Sofregaz was asked to carry out investigation and  report whether safe engineering practices have been  followed  during  construction  of  the  existing underground pipelines; (2) to ascertain whether the pipeline has    been    laid    as    per    standard    construction specification/codes and  to  review  the  QA/QC  procedures, namely,   welding    procedure   specifications,    material specifications,  coating  and  cathodic  protection  and  to recommend modifications/improvements  wherever required.  It was also  required to  carry out other datailed examinations as set  out in  its terms of reference. Ir was also required to carry  out other  detailed examinations as set out in its terms of control quickly any leak/burst etc. It was required to  report  on  the  status  of  pipeline,  critical  areas, preventive measures,  disaster management plan, remedies and recommendations.  Sofregaz  report  sets  out  that  on  its general assessment there was no apparent alarming deficiency in the  pipelines with  respect to safe operation and safety of life  and property.  GAIL should, however, take action to attend  to   the  points   listed  in  the  minutes  of  the discussions for  further improvement  of long term safety of the pipelines.  It also said that based on the survey of the depth of cover over the pipelines to the extent observed, it considers it  to be  well within  the acceptable  limit with reference to  the standard  followed by  GAZ DE  FVRANCE  in normal condition  of operation. As such it was not necessary to undertake  further lowering  of  the  pipeline  from  the present state  of cover to the extent observed. The detailed point-by-point  action  plan  of  Sofregaz  and  the  action consequently taken  by GAIL  in connection  with each of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

recommendations has  been set out in detail as Annexure 2 to the report of Sofregaz is the outcome of a post-construction inergrity survey  for  pipelines  in  and  around  Delhi.  A technical survey  by an  independent agency  was  considered necessary in  view of  the  fact  that  the  Delhi  pipeline network was  the first urban and sub-urban gas dis tribution system executed  by GAIL.  A decision  to have such a survey through international  competitive bidding by an experienced international company  was taken  on 22.6.1993 even prior to the occurrence  of the  gas leak at Dhaula Kuan. The cost of such technical  audit is  part of  the approved  cost of the project itself.      A  detailed  status  report  has  also  been  submitted dealing with  diverse aspects of maintenance of the pipeline network in  the country.  It deals  with the health check of the pipelines  taken over  from ONGC  and the  operation and maintenance control  of the  entire pipeline  system in  the country. The  streamlining of  procedures  achieved  over  a period  has   led  to   GAIL  obtaining   certification   by International Organisation  for Standardization  (ISO  9002) and conferment  of the Oil Industry Safety Award to GAIL for the year  1992-93. GAIL  has  also  pointed  out  that  high pressure gas  pipelines owned  and operated by it across the country are  laid as per international standards and in fact GAIL has  prescribed even  more stringent standards than the international code  ANSI 31.8.  It has annexed a comparative table in  which, inter  alia, the  minimum cover  of a  pipe under ANSI  is 75  cms. while GAIL has prescribed 75 cms. to 1.5 meters.  GAIL has  also taken  the  following  important decisions to  streamline the  procedures in  the  matter  of execution of works :      (i)  To have  a  3-layer  polythene      coating   which    has   a   higher      resistance to handling damage;      (ii) To  execute the  work with  an      overall consultancy  by third party      agency with backup consultant;      (iii)  To   have  inspection   both      during  procurement   as  well   as      construction   by    third    party      agencies  along   with  the   check      inspecting agency in addition to an      audit group  of GAIL  consisting of      persons from  a project  other than      the   particular   projects   being      audited; and      (iv) To provide all future pipeline      systems with  optical  fibre  cable      links to  the various  nodal points      to ensure safe communication.      Looking to  the detailed  information furnished by GAIL and the  measures taken  by it  as set  out in  the material which is  disclosed by  GAIL, we  do not  think any  further action is  now required  to be taken by this Court. GAIL has been at  paints to  allay the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner. Looking  to the  material on  record, we  do not think that any further directions are required. The petition is accordingly  disposed of.  There will  be no  order as to costs.