2010 (3) TMI 1098 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Uppanar river and its banks at the point where pipelines pass fall in the CRZ III area.
2. Whether paragraph 2(ii) of the 1991 Notification restricts the transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond the port area to the PVC plant through pipelines.
3. The validity of the permissions and clearances granted to Chemplast by various authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Uppanar river and its banks at the point where pipelines pass fall in the CRZ III area:
The court examined the 1991 Notification and subsequent amendments, particularly focusing on the Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) of Tamil Nadu approved in 1996 (1996 Plan). The 1996 Plan, prepared and approved by the MOEF, does not categorize the banks of Uppanar river at the relevant location as CRZ III area. The court noted that the amendments to the 1991 Notification in 1998 and 2002, which introduced new criteria for demarcating CRZ areas, do not override the 1996 Plan. The court concluded that the 1996 Plan remains operative and authoritative for identifying CRZ areas. Consequently, the Uppanar river and its banks where the pipelines pass do not fall under CRZ III, and no environmental clearance was required for the pipelines at that location.

2. Whether paragraph 2(ii) of the 1991 Notification restricts the transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond the port area to the PVC plant through pipelines:
The court interpreted paragraph 2(ii) of the 1991 Notification, which prohibits the handling of hazardous substances in the CRZ area, except for transfer from ships to ports, terminals, and refineries and vice versa, in the port areas. The court applied a purposive construction to the phrase "in the port areas," interpreting it as "in or through the port areas" to avoid absurdity and ensure the provision's functionality. This interpretation allows the transfer of hazardous substances, such as VCM, through pipelines from the port area to the plant. The court found that the permission granted by the MOEF on December 19, 2005, for the construction of the Marine Terminal Facility (MTF) and the associated pipelines was valid and in compliance with the 1991 Notification.

3. The validity of the permissions and clearances granted to Chemplast by various authorities:
The court reviewed the sequence of approvals and permissions granted to Chemplast, starting from the environmental clearance by the MOEF for the PVC plant and MTF, the consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), and the permission from the Executive Engineer for laying pipelines under the Uppanar river. The court found no suppression of material facts by Chemplast regarding the existence of Uppanar river in its proposals. The court upheld the validity of all the permissions and clearances granted, including the environmental clearance by the MOEF on December 19, 2005, and the permission by the Executive Engineer on February 27, 2008. The court dismissed the objections raised by the petitioners, concluding that the project had been established with substantial investment and had already commenced operations, making it unjust and against public interest to interfere with it at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances and permissions granted to Chemplast. The court held that the Uppanar river and its banks at the relevant location do not fall under CRZ III as per the 1996 Plan, and the transfer of VCM through pipelines is permissible under the 1991 Notification. The court validated all the permissions and clearances granted to Chemplast and rejected the alternative solutions suggested by the petitioners. The project, having been established with significant investment and already operational, was not to be interfered with in the interest of justice and public interest.