REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2284    OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7101 of 2009)

M. Nizamudeen                …Appellant

Versus

M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others      …Respondents

WITH W.P. (Civil) No. 130 OF 2009

WITH  T.P. (Civil) Nos. 365-367 OF 2009

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 7101 of 2009.

2. In this group of five matters before us, civil appeal is  

directed against the judgment of Madras High Court passed on

October 31, 2008 whereby a writ petition in the nature of Public  

Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the appellant – M. Nizamudeen -  

has been dismissed. Out of the other four matters; one is a writ  

petition  being  W.P.  (C)  No.  130  of  2009  preferred  directly  

before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution while the  

other  three  matters  are  transfer  petitions  seeking  transfer  of  

Writ Petition nos. 37043 of 2006, 8125 of 2007 and 23122 of  

2007 filed before the Madras High Court.

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.  

4. One of the raw-materials for manufacturing PVC is  

Vinyl  Chloride  Monomer  (VCM).  VCM  is  not  available  

indigenously and Chemplast  planned to import  the said raw-

material  for  their  plant  use  from  international  suppliers.  

Chemplast in their proposal also proposed to install a Marine  

Terminal  Facility  (for  short,  ‘MTF’)  near  the  seashore  at  

Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from the  

ships to the PVC plant through underground pipeline.    

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:  

“01. Laying  of  pipe  lines  for  the  transportation  of  Vinyl  Chloride   Monomer  (VCM)  as  permitted  vide  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests,  Coastal  Regulation  Zone  Notification  dated  19th February  1991  In  paragraph  2  (Prohibited  Activities),  in  sub  paragraph  (ii)  with  proviso  “except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports  terminals and refineries and vice-versa In the port areas”.

02. Treated effluent lines and sea water intake and return  lines as permitted vide Ministry of Environment and Forests,  Costal  Regulation  Zone  Notification  dated  19th February  1991 in paragraph 2 (Prohibited Activities) in sub paragraph  (xii)  with  proviso  “except  facilities  for  carrying  treated  effluents and waste water discharges into the sea, facilities  for  carrying  sea  water  for  cooling  purposes,  oil,  gas  and  similar  pipelines  and  facilities  essential  for  activities  permitted under this Notification’.

03. Constructions for jetty activities and control room as  permitted vide Ministry of Environment and Forests, Coastal  Regulation  Zone  Notification  dated  19th February  1991  in  paragraph  3  (Regulation  of  Permissible  Activities)  in  sub  paragraph 2 of (ii) with proviso “operational constructions for  ports and harbours and light houses and constructions for  activities such as jetties, wharves, quays and slipways’.”

6. The  aforesaid  recommendations  were  considered  

by  the  TNSCZMA and  they  resolved  in  its  meeting  held  on  

October  17,  2005 to  recommend to  the state  government  to  

4

forward  the  proposal  to  the  MOEF  for  the  issue  of  CRZ  

clearance to Chemplast with the following conditions :

“1. The unit shall comply safety measures stipulated by  the  Navigational  Safety  in  Ports  Committee  (NSPC),  Goa  and  shall  obtain  the  clearance  from  NSPC  before  Commissioning of the jetty.

2. The  unit  shall  inform  in  advance  to  the  Assistant  Director  of  Fisheries Department,  Cuddalore as and when  the loading and unloading of VCM is done from the ship.

3. The unit shall obtain NOC from the Tamil Nadu Pollution  Control Board before commissioning of the jetty and the unit  shall comply with the norms prescribed by the Tamil Nadu  Pollution Control Board from time to time.

4. The unit  shall  submit the Disaster Management Plan to  the District Authorities before commissioning of the jetty.

5. The Unit shall transport and dispose the treated effluent  and  R.O  rejects  of  the  Desalination  Plant  by  conducting  Hydrological  study  through  National  Institute  of  Ocean  Technology/National Institute of Oceanography.

6. The Unit shall install double walled pipeline in a concrete  trench for the transport of VCM from the Jetty to the Plant.

7. The Unit shall install Emergency shutdown valves in the  Jetty and leak detection system in the onshore pipeline.

8. The unit shall install adequate fire fighting equipment to  encounter any eventuality due to fire.

9. The unit’s marine activity shall not give any hindrance to  the public as well as to the aquatic life.

10. The unit shall provide and operate sufficient Navigational  lighting Indication system during the night hours,

11. The waste water after treatment in the effluent treatment  plant should not be discharged into the sea.”

5

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.

8. The  government  of  Tamil  Nadu  by  its  

communication dated November 9, 2005 informed the National  

Coastal  Zone  Management  Authority  its  acceptance  of  the  

recommendation made by the TNSCZMA and recommended  

the proposal of Chemplast seeking environmental clearance for  

setting  up  of  MTF.   Along  with  its  communication  dated  

November 9,  2005,  the   state   government  sent,  inter-alia :  

(i)  questionnaire for environmental appraisal  for  MTF  (ii)  EIA  

prepared by  LT Ramboll; (iii)  RA prepared by LT Ramboll; and  

(iv)  minutes  of  the  34th meeting  of  the  TNSCZMA  held  on  

17.10.2005.

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.  

10. The environmental clearance dated December 19,  

2005  granted  by  the  MOEF  clarified  that  the  

stipulations/conditions set out therein will  be enforced among  

others under  the Water  (Prevention and Control  of  Pollution)  

Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,  

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Hazardous Chemicals  

(Manufacture,  Storage  and  Import)  Rules,  1989,  the  1991  

Notification  and  its  subsequent  amendments  and  the  Public  

Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and the Rules made thereunder.  

Chemplast  was  also  directed  to  ensure  that  the  proposal  

complies  with  the  provisions  of  the  approved  Coastal  Zone  

Management Plan of Tamil Nadu, 1996 (for short, ‘1996 Plan’).  

11. The TNPCB in light of the environmental clearance  

dated December 19, 2005 granted by the MOEF accorded its  

8

consent on September 14, 2006 for the PVC plant as well as  

MTF and pipeline project of the Chemplast.

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.   

14. It  appears that  after  Petition for  Special  Leave to  

Appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court came to  

be filed by M. Nizamudeen before this Court that a writ petition  

under Article 32 of the Constitution has been preferred directly  

before this Court by A. Bhunanenthiran praying therein that the  

permission granted by the MOEF on December 19,  2005 be  

quashed  and  a  Writ  of  Mandamus  be  issued  to  the  MOEF,  

TNSCZMA and TNPCB to  ensure  that  no prohibited activity,  

viz., handling of any hazardous chemical through pipelines or  

otherwise takes place in CRZ areas on both sides of Uppanar  

river.

10

15.  Be it noted here that three more writ petitions (Writ  

Petition nos. 37043/2006, 8125/2007 and 23122/2007) came to  

be filed before Madras High Court  challenging environmental  

clearances  granted  by  the  MOEF  to  the  Chemplast.   The  

appellant  -  M.  Nizamudeen  -   has  sought  transfer  of  these  

petitions to this Court.  I.A.  No. 7 has been made therein for  

deletion  of  respondent  nos.  21  and  22.   As  the  issues  are  

common, these writ petitions are transferred to this Court and  

respondent nos. 21 and 22 are deleted from array of parties.

16. We  heard  learned  senior  counsel  and  counsel  for  the  

parties at considerable length.

17. Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant - M. Nizamudeen – submitted: that 100 meters from  

the High Tide Line (HTL) on both sides of Uppanar river are  

CRZ-III  areas  where  handling  of  hazardous  substance  is  

prohibited; that VCM is hazardous substance notified under the  

Notification  of  MOEF  issued  on  November  27,  1989  and  

handling of a substance includes transfer, as per Section 2(d)  

of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; that Chemplast did not  

11

seek any permission in respect of the pipelines in the CRZ on  

both sides of Uppanar river, rather existence of Uppanar river  

itself  was  suppressed  in  the proposals  made;  that  1996  

Plan  was  neither  annexed  nor  referred to in the proposals  

made before the competent authorities, nor was even brought  

to the notice of the High Court and it is being referred to and  

relied upon for the first time by Chemplast before this Court;  

that  Chemplast  while  submitting  proposals  to  the  competent  

authorities itself annexed a demarcation map prepared by the  

National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) to show the High Tide  

Line/Low Tide Line [HTL/LTL] and the relevant CRZ area; that  

the said demarcation map prepared by NIO, for the purpose of  

environmental clearance, must prevail  over 1996 Plan and in  

any  case  1996  Plan  has  become  redundant  by  the  

amendments in 1991 Notification.  

18. Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  learned  senior  counsel  also  

submitted  that  a  close  look  at  the  environmental  clearance  

dated December 19, 2005 granted by the MOEF would show  

that  it  neither  covers  nor  includes  the  activities  of  laying  of  

pipelines across and underneath Uppanar river and drawing of  

12

VCM  through  pipelines.  He  lastly  submitted  that  Executive  

Engineer had no authority to permit laying of pipelines in the  

CRZ of Uppanar river.

19. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel for writ  

petitioner  -  A.  Bhunanenthiran  -  adopted  the  submissions  of  

Mr. Ranjit  Kumar and further submitted that identification and  

demarcation of CRZ of any particular State involve two distinct  

processes and,  although, 1996 Plan does not show the land  

portion of the banks of Uppanar river under CRZ area but the  

very concept of CRZ areas surrounding rivers changed in 2002.  

He would submit that 1998 amendment in 1991 Notification lays  

down  that  demarcation  of  CRZ  has  to  be  done  by  the  

authorized agencies and, therefore, the initial determination of  

CRZ has to be reassessed in light of the demarcation of the  

HTL / LTL and CRZ area carried out by authorized demarcating  

agencies.  

20. Dr.  Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel  would  

submit  that  the  application  made  on  May  27,  2002  was  

abandoned  by  Chemplast  because  the  statutory  designated  

authority,  in  its  inspection  held  in  the  month  of  June  2005,  

13

declared the relevant area to be CRZ and the District Coastal  

Zone Management Committee   and TNSCZMA had examined  

the earlier application for the port area alone. He submitted that  

realising  that  the  CRZ  extended  to  the  Uppanar  river,  

Chemplast  made  devious  hidden  changes  in  its  application  

made  on  November  14,  2005.   Learned  senior  counsel  

submitted that the permission granted by MOEF on December  

19, 2005 is limited to MTF and no more. He reiterated that the  

phrase  “and  thereon  to  the  plant”  in  the  permission  dated  

December 19, 2005 does not cover permission for the pipeline  

all the way to the Uppanar river.

21. Learned  senior  counsel  urged  that  1996  Plan  is  

obsolete and must make way for the plan prepared by NIO and  

the demarcation of CRZ by the NIO being final, the said plan  

must prevail over 1996 Plan.  

22. According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, CRZ-III status has  

to  be  attributed  to  both  banks  of  the  Uppanar  river  through  

which the pipeline carrying the hazardous substance VCM is to  

be taken to  the plant.   Referring  to  the 1991 Notification as  

amended in 2002, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan  submitted that  VCM can  

14

be brought on to the port area but not carried any further by  

pipeline in or  across CRZ area including the CRZ-III  area in  

relation  to  rivers,  creeks  and  backwaters  where  the  salinity  

concentration is 5 ppt  for  a distance of  100 meters from the  

HTL or the width of the river whichever is less.  He referred to  

public  trust  doctrine  and  precautionary  and  public  interest  

principles and submitted that in relation to the CRZ, the public  

interest to protect the environment is paramount and the benefit  

of  doubt and precaution should be given to the environment.  

Learned senior  counsel  submitted  that  interest  of  Chemplast  

and  the  industry  must  yield  to  the  public  interest  in  the  

environment. He would submit that although there has been no  

challenge to the permission granted on November 28, 2005 to  

the  PVC  plant  utilizing  the  VCM  but,  since  the  tanks  of  

Chemplast probably fall in the CRZ area, this Court must order  

the plant to be CRZ compliant by shifting the storage tanks. As  

regards carriage of VCM, Dr.  Rajeev Dhavan suggested that  

VCM can be carried in tankers at minus 13 degree centigrade  

which  cannot  be  done  by  pipeline  by  going  upstream  and  

crossing  a  bridge  and  this  being  an  alternative  solution,  the  

15

Court may accept the same which would be consistent with the  

public interest principles.

23. On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  

senior counsel for the Chemplast submitted that PIL filed before  

the High Court and also directly before this Court are not bona  

fide as the petitioners in these matters have been set up by a  

corporate rival, viz., Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited  

(CPCL) who wanted the land in question at a much cheaper  

price. CPCL instigated and got these persons who had objected  

to the scheme in 2002. Learned senior counsel submitted that  

after obtaining necessary approvals and permissions, the plant  

at the cost of about Rs. 600 crores has been set up and after  

having obtained the consent to operate, the plant has started its  

commercial production. He also submitted that 1996 Plan still  

holds the field and as per that plan, particularly, sheet no. 10  

prepared for  the Cuddalore District,  the tidal  influence in the  

Uppanar  river  ends  above  Thiyagavalli  village  and  below  

Kudigadu village of Cuddalore Old Town area and, therefore,  

the  area  on  both  sides  of  Uppanar  river  through  which  the  

pipeline traverses is not CRZ area at all. Mr. K.K. Venugopal  

16

contended that the plan prepared by the NIO is not approved  

plan and the said plan cannot override 1996 Plan approved by  

the central government under 1991 Notification. Learned senior  

counsel also submitted that laying of pipelines for transfer of  

VCM is not a prohibited activity as contended by the petitioners  

as the interpretation given by them to paragraph 2(ii) of 1991  

Notification is too restrictive and narrow.  

24. Learned counsel for Union of India urged that the  

point at which the pipelines pass under the Uppanar river and  

its banks is not a part of CRZ as per 1996 Plan prepared by the  

state government and approved by the central government and,  

therefore, no permission or environmental clearance is required  

for that portion of the pipeline that passes under the Uppanar  

river  nor  such  permission  was  granted.  He  submitted  that  

environmental  clearance  was only  required  for  the  MTF and  

that portion of the pipeline that falls within the CRZ abutting the  

sea, i.e. within 500 meters from HTL and vide permission dated  

December 19, 2005, environmental clearance was granted for  

this portion of the pipeline only. He would also submit that the  

interpretation given to paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification by the  

17

petitioners  is  not  correct  interpretation  and  that  exception  in  

paragraph 2(ii) needs to be construed in a purposive manner.

25. In view of  the contentions advanced by the senior  

counsel and counsel for the parties, the first question which we  

have to look to is, whether Uppanar river and its banks at the  

point  where  pipelines  pass,  fall  in  the  CRZ III  area.   If  the  

answer  to  this  is  in  the  affirmative,  obviously,  the  pipelines  

crossing underneath Uppanar river would require environmental  

clearance.   The other  main question we have to  consider  in  

connection with these matters is,  whether  paragraph 2(ii)   of  

1991  Notification  restricts  transfer  of  VCM  (hazardous  

substance)  beyond  port  area  to  the  PVC  plant  through  

pipelines.   Other  considerations would depend on answer  to  

these two core issues.   

26. In considering the first question, we need to look to  

1991  Notification  which  came  to  be  issued  by  the  MOEF  

declaring  the  coastal  stretches  as  Coastal  Regulation  Zone  

(CRZ) and regulating activities in such area.  1991 Notification  

18

has  been  amended  from  time  to  time.   To  the  extent  it  is  

relevant, it reads :

“Now,  therefore,  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  by  Clause  (d)  of  sub-rule  (3)  of  Rule  5  of  the  Environment  (Protection) Rules, 1986, and all other powers vesting in its  behalf, the Central Government hereby declares the coastal  stretches  of  seas,  bays,  estuaries,  creeks,  rivers  and  backwaters  which  are  influenced  by  tidal  action  (in  the  landward  side)  upto  500  metres  from the  High  Tide  Line  (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and the  HTL as Coastal  Regulation Zone; and imposes with effect  from the date of this Notification, the following restrictions on  the  setting  up  and  expansion  of  industries,  operations  or  processes etc. in the said Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ).

1[(i)  For the purposes of this notification, the High Tide Line  means the line on the land up to which the highest water line  reaches during the spring tide. The High Tide Line shall be  demarcated  uniformly  in  all  parts  of  the  country  by  the  demarcating  authority  or  authorities  so  authorised  by  the  Central  Government,  in  accordance  with  the  general  guidelines issued in this regard]

2[(ii) The distance from the High Tide Line shall apply to both  sides in the case of rivers, creeks and backwaters and may  be  modified  on  a  case  to  case  basis  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing  while  preparing  the  Coastal  Zone  Management Plans provided that this distance shall not be  less  than  100  meters  or  the  width  of  the  creek,  river  or  backwaters,  which ever is  less.  The distance up to  which  development along rivers, creeks and backwaters is to be  regulated shall be governed by the distance up to which the  tidal  effects  are  experienced  which  shall  be  determined  based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand (ppt).  For  the  purpose  of  this  notification,  the  salinity  measurements shall be made during the driest period of the  year  and  the  distance  upto  which  tidal  effects  are  experienced  shall  be  clearly  identified  and  demarcated  accordingly in the Coastal Zone Management Plans.;]

1 Substituted by S.O.1122(E), dated 29th December, 1998. Gazette of India (Extra). No. 849, dated  29-12-1998. 2 Inserted as per S.O.(E). No. 550 (E), dated 21st May, 2002

19

2. Prohibited Activities :

The  following  activities  are  declared  as  prohibited  within the Coastal Regulation Zone, namely :

(i) ………….

(ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal  of  hazardous  substances  as  specified  in  the  Notifications  of  the  Government  of  India  in  the  Ministry  of  Environment  & Forests  No.  S.O.  594(E)  dated  28th  July,  1989,  S.O.  966(E)  dated  27th  November,  1989  and  GSR  1037(E)  dated  5th  December,  1989;  3[except  transfer  of  hazardous  substances  from  ships  to  ports,  terminals  and  refineries and vice versa, in the port areas:] ………………………

3. Regulation of Permissible Activities :

All  other  activities,  except  those prohibited in  para 2 above, will be regulated as under :

1.  ………

2.   The following activities will require environmental  clearance  from  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests, Government of India, namely:  

(i)  ……...

(ii)   4[Operational  constructions  for  ports,  harbours  and light houses and construction activities of jetties,  wharves, Slipways, pipelines and conveying systems  including  transmission  lines  provided  that  environmental  clearance in case of  constructions or  modernization or expansion of jetties and wharves in  the  Union  Territory  of  Lakshadweep  for  providing  embarkation and disembarkation facilities shall be on  the basis of a report of scientific study conducted by  the Central Government or any agency authorized or  

3 Added by S.O. 494(E), dated 9th July, 1997. Gazette of India (Extra) No. 393, Part II, Sec. 3(ii),  dated 9th July, 1997. 4 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;

(ii) Within the framework of such approved plans, all  development and activities within the CRZ other than  those covered in para 2 and para 3 (2) above shall be  regulated by the State Government,  Union Territory  Administration or the local authority as the case may  be  in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  given  in  Annexures-I and II of the Notification; and  

(iii)  In  the  interim  period  till  the  Coastal  Zone  Management Plans mentioned in para 3(3)(i)  above  are  prepared  and  approved,  all  developments  and  activities  within  the  CRZ  shall  not  violate  the  provisions of this Notification. State Governments and  Union  Territory  Administrations  shall  ensure  adherence to these regulations and violations, if any,  shall be subject to the provisions of the Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986.”  

27. Indian  Council  for  Enviro-Legal  Action  filed  a  writ  

petition before this Court challenging some of the amendments  

made in 1991 Notification; they also raised the grievance that  

the MOEF except for issuing the 1991 Notification had taken no  

steps  to  follow  up  its  own  directions  contained  in  that  

21

Notification. This Court while disposing of writ petition filed by  

Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action [(1996) 5 SCC 281], inter  

alia, issued the following directions:

“(1) ….…………………   (2)……………………..

(3)  Considering the fact that  the Pollution Control  Boards  are not only overworked but simultaneously have a limited  role to play insofar as it relates to controlling of pollution for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  effective  implementation  of  the  notifications of 1991 and 1994, as also of the Management  Plans,  the Central  Government should consider setting up  under  Section  3  of  the  Act,  State  Coastal  Management  Authorities in each State or zone and also a National Coastal  Management Authority.

(4) The States which have not filed the Management Plans  with the Central Government are directed to file the complete  plans by 30-6-1996. The Central Government shall finalise  and  approve  the  said  plans,  with  or  without  modifications  within three months thereafter. It is possible that the plans as  submitted by the respective State Governments and Union  Territories  may  not  be  acceptable  to  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests.  Returning  the  said  plans  for  modifications  and  then  resubmission  of  the  same  may  become an unnecessary,  time-consuming and,  perhaps,  a  futile  exercise.  In  order  to  ensure  that  these  plans  are  finalised  at  the  very  earliest,  we  direct  that  the  plans  as  submitted will be examined by the Central Government who  will  inform  the  State  Government  or  the  Union  Territory  concerned with regard to any shortcomings or modifications  which the Ministry of Environment and Forests may suggest.  If  necessary,  a  discussion amongst  the representatives of  the State Governments and the Ministry of Environment and  Forests should take place and thereafter the plans should be  finalised  by  the  Ministry  of  Environment,  if  necessary,  by  carrying  out  such  modifications  as  may  be  required.  The  decision by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in this  regard shall be final and binding.

22

A report with regard to the submission and the finalisation of  the plans should be filed in this Court and the case will be  listed for noting compliance in September 1996. ………………………………………………..”

28. Paragraph 3(3)(i)  of  1991 Notification requires the  

Coastal States and UT Administrations to prepare Coastal Zone  

Management  Plans  for  identification  and  classification  of  the  

CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance with  

the guidelines given in Annexures I and II of the Notification. It  

further  mandates  Coastal  States  and  UT  Administrations  to  

obtain approval of such plans from the Central Government. As  

a matter  of  fact,  the said provision provided a period of  one  

year  for  preparation  of  such  plans  from  the  date  of  the  

Notification,  but  the  Coastal  States  and  UT  Administrations  

remained dormant for many years  in this regard.   However,  

consequent  upon directions  of  this  Court,  the  State  of  Tamil  

Nadu  submitted  its  Coastal  Zone  Management  Plan  to  the  

MOEF  on  August  23,  1996  which  was  approved   on  

September  27,  1996  (1996  Plan)  containing  31  sheets  

corresponding to maps for different stretches of the coastline of  

the State of Tamil Nadu with certain conditions/modifications/  

23

classifications.  Sheet no.10 pertains to the coastal stretch of  

Cuddalore District.  The MOEF, based on sheet no. 10 (1996  

Plan)  have stated in their affidavit that the land portion of the  

banks  of  Uppanar  river  adjacent  to  the  plant  in  Thiyagavalli  

village where the pipeline crosses Uppanar river does not come  

under  the  CRZ  area.  This  position  is  reiterated  by  the  

TNSCZMA in their affidavit filed before this Court:  

“………………as  per  the  approved  Coastal  Zone  Management Plan, the banks of Uppanar River adjacent to  the Plant in Thiyagavalli Village where the pipeline crosses  River Uppanar does not come under CRZ area……………… …….”  

29. We were also shown a copy of  sheet  no.10 from  

which it did not transpire that Uppanar river and its banks where  

the  pipelines  pass  have  tidal  influence  and  come under  the  

CRZ area. That 1996 Plan does not reflect the area on both  

sides of the Uppanar river through which the pipelines pass as  

CRZ area is not in dispute. The contention of the senior counsel  

for  the  petitioner/appellant  is  that  1996  Plan  has  become  

redundant and obsolete in view of change in the CRZ regime  

24

due to amendments in 1991 Notification,  first  on  December  

29, 1998  and  then  on  May 21, 2002.

30. By  1998 amendment,  it has been provided in 1991  

Notification that HTL shall be demarcated uniformly in all parts  

of  the country by the demarcating authority  or  authorities  so  

authorized by the central  government in accordance with  the  

general guidelines issued in this regard. By further amendment  

on May 21, 2002, sub-paragraph  (ii) was inserted in the first  

para  of  1991  Notification  providing  therein  that  the  distance  

from the HTL shall  apply to both sides in the case of rivers,  

creeks and backwaters. The said amendment provides that the  

distance  up  to  which  development  along  rivers,  creeks  and  

backwaters is to be regulated shall be governed by the distance  

up to  which the tidal  effects  are  experienced which  shall  be  

determined based on salinity concentration of 5 ppt. It further  

provides that salinity measurements shall be made during the  

driest period of the year and distance up to which tidal effects  

are experienced shall  be clearly identified and demarcated in  

the Coastal Zone Management Plans. It is perfectly true that at  

the  time  of  preparation  and  approval  of  1996  Plan,  the  

25

amendments of December 29, 1998 and May 21, 2002 in 1991  

Notification had not seen the light of the day and the declaration  

made  in  first  para  that  the  coastal  stretches  of  seas,  bays,  

estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced  

by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 meters from the  

HTL and the land between the LTL and the HTL are CRZ was  

kept in view but in the absence of any modification carried out  

thereafter,  1996  Plan  remains  operative.  The  authorities  

authorized to demarcate HTL, we are afraid,  cannot  override  

the plan prepared and approved under paragraph 3(3)(i) as the  

said paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that Coastal Zone  

Management Plan prepared by the Coastal  State (or for that  

matter  State  Coastal  Zone  Management  Authority)  and  duly  

approved by the MOEF is the relevant plan for identification and  

classification of CRZ areas. The plan prepared by NIO, thus,  

cannot  be  said  to  have  superseded  1996  Plan  for  the  

Cuddalore coastal stretch.

31. Moreso,  while  giving  approval  on  September  27,  

1996 to 1996 Plan, the MOEF appended, inter alia, a condition  

that government of Tamil Nadu would not make any change in  

26

the  approved  categorization  of  CRZ  area  without  its  prior  

approval.  Seen  thus,  1996  Plan  for  the  purposes  of  

demarcation and classification of CRZ area in the state of Tamil  

Nadu has to be treated as final and conclusive and has been  

rightly treated as such by the MOEF. We hold, as it must be,  

that the Uppanar river and its banks at the relevant place where  

the pipelines laid by the Chemplast pass do not fall under CRZ  

III  area as per 1996 Plan and no environmental  clearance is  

needed for such pipelines. The stand of the MOEF is, which  

seems to us to be correct, that they have granted permission to  

the onshore pipelines insofar as these pass through the CRZ  

abutting  the  sea,  i.e.  500  meters  from  the  HTL  and  no  

clearance has been granted as it was not required for laying of  

pipelines under the Uppanar river.

32. Here,  we may also deal  with  the objection of  the  

petitioners that  Chemplast  has suppressed the material  facts  

regarding the existence of Uppanar river in its proposals. In the  

first  place,  there  seems  to  be  no  substance  in  the  said  

objection. From the materials available on record that include  

the  Environment  Impact  Assessment  Report  (EIA)  and  Risk  

27

Analysis  Report  (RA),  it  cannot  be  said  that  existence  of  

Uppanar  river  has been suppressed by the Chemplast  in  its  

proposals  although  in  these  reports  Uppanar  river  has  been  

described as Uppanar canal. In EIA prepared by L & T Ramboll,  

in Section 3.6.2.2., it is stated:

“The onshore pipeline to the extent possible is routed in a  direct  line  from the  landfall  point  to  the  Plant  in  order  to  minimise the length. The route crosses the Uppanar canal  where the pipeline will be trenched sufficiently deep into the  canal bed to avoid impact from grounding vessels, dropped  objects  or  dragged anchors.  The pipeline section crossing  the Uppanar will be of a type similar to the marine pipeline  section.  As  regards  the  onshore  section,  the  selection  of  pipeline  type  and installation  is  discussed in  the  following  paragraphs :   

The main options for the land pipeline will be :

• Trenched, sub terrain pipe line (-1.0 to -1.5 m) • Pipeline on low supports at the terrain surface  

(+0.2 to +0.5m) • Overhead pipeline on masts/columns above  

bus/truck  passage  heights  (+4.5  to  5m)

(Approximate  levels  given  from  existing  natural   ground level)”  

     Similarly,  in  Section  5  of  RA,  reference  is  made  to  

pipeline  crossing  Uppanar  canal.  The  position  is  clarified  by  

Chemplast in their subsequent application made on November  

14,  2005.  In  the  second  place,  and  more  importantly,  this  

objection pales into insignificance in view of our finding that the  

28

land portion of the banks of Uppanar river where the pipelines  

laid by Chemplast pass Uppanar river does not fall under CRZ  

III area.

33. Now, we advert to the other main issue concerning  

paragraph 2(ii)  of  1991 Notification.  This  paragraph prohibits  

manufacture or handling or  storage or  disposal  of  hazardous  

substances, as specified in the Notifications issued by MOEF  

(dated 28th July, 1989, 27th November, 1989 and 5th December,  

1989), except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to  

ports, terminals and refineries and vice-versa, in the port areas.  

That  VCM  is  hazardous  substance  notified  vide  notification  

dated November 27, 1989 is not in dispute. There is also no  

dispute,  rather  it  is  an  admitted  position,  that  handling  of  a  

substance  includes  transfer  as  per  Section  2(d)  of  the  

Environment  (Protection) Act,  1986.  It  was contended by the  

senior counsel for the appellant/petitioner that transfer of VCM  

in  CRZ  area  is  completely  prohibited  and  VCM  cannot  be  

carried  through  the  CRZ  except  in  the  port  area.  Their  

argument is that VCM can be brought onshore by pipeline to  

the  port  area  but  not  in  the  CRZ  area.  The  arguments  of  

29

learned  senior  counsel  have  put  in  issue  the  scope  of  

expression,  “except  transfer  of  hazardous  substances  from  

ships to ports,  terminals and refineries and vice versa in the  

port  areas”  which  was  added  in  paragraph  2(ii)  on  9th July,  

1997. We are called upon to ascertain the true meaning and  

intention  of  the  Executive  in  bringing  this  exception.  In  the  

original  1991  Notification  there  was  no  exception  clause.  It  

appears  to  have  been  added  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  

transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, ships to  

terminals  and  ships  to  refineries  and  vice  versa.    Is  such  

transfer  of  hazardous  substances  confined  to  terminals  and  

refineries  located  in  the  port  areas?   The  answer  in  the  

affirmative may make the said provision unworkable and would  

also result in absurdity inasmuch as the hazardous substance  

would be brought in to the port, refinery or terminal in the port  

area from the ship and would remain there and could not be  

taken beyond  the  port  area  because of  the  prohibition.  This  

surely  could not  have been the intention of  the Executive  in  

adding the exception clause. It is well settled that if exception  

has been added to remedy the mischief or defect, it should be  

30

so construed that remedies the mischief and not in a manner  

which frustrates the very purpose. Purposive construction has  

often been employed to avoid a lacuna and to suppress the  

mischief and advance the remedy. It is again a settled rule that  

if  the  language  used  is  capable  of  bearing  more  than  one  

construction  and  if  construction  is  employed  that  results  in  

absurdity or anomaly, such construction has to be rejected and  

preference should be given to such a construction that brings it  

into harmony with its purpose and avoids absurdity or anomaly  

as it may always be presumed that while employing a particular  

language  in  the  provision  absurdity  or  anomaly  was  never  

intended. Notwithstanding imperfection of expression and that  

exception clause is not happily worded, we are of the view that  

by applying purposive construction, the expression, ‘in the port  

areas’ should be read as, ‘in or through the port  areas’.  The  

exception in paragraph 2 (ii)  then would achieve its objective  

and read, ‘except transfer of hazardous substances from ships  

to  ports,  ships  to  terminals  and  ships  to  refineries  and  vice  

versa, in or through the port  areas’.  This construction will  be  

harmonious with paragraph 3(2)(ii) which permits the activity of  

31

laying pipelines in the CRZ area. As a matter of fact, the MOEF  

in their affidavit before this Court have clearly stated that the  

permission granted to Chemplast  on  19th December, 2005 is in  

exercise  of  the  powers conferred  under  paragraph 3(2)(ii)  of  

1991 Notification. We do not find any infirmity in the permission  

granted by the MOEF on 19th December, 2005.  Having held  

that,  there  is  no  illegality  in  the  permission  granted  by  the  

Executive Engineer on February 27, 2008 either.  

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.  

 ……………………CJI

…….……………..J      (R. M. Lodha)

…….……………..J New Delhi,                 (Dr.B.S. Chauhan) March  10, 2010.

33