F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. - (1.) THIS is a public interest litigation and the petitioner seeks to challenge the proceedings of the third respondent in letter No.D3/JDO.2/F.46/2008, Dated 27.02.2008. While seeking to set aside the said proceedings, the petitioner also seeks to forbear the first respondent from laying any pipeline for drawing the raw material Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) from the Jetty located at Tiyagavalli village to their plant in Semmankuppam village, Cuddalore district.
(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be the Executive Secretary of a body called Cuddalore District Consumer Protection Organization stated to have been registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the first respondent is a company which has planned to set up a project for manufacturing Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) in Semmankuppam Village in Cuddalore District. One of the essential raw material for the manufacture of PVC is stated to be Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) which according to the first responded is not available indigenously. The first respondent is stated to have therefore planned to import the said raw material for its use at Cuddalore plant. According to the first respondent by virtue of its nature, the raw material VCM should be stored at minus 30 degree Celsius in a liquid state, that therefore the first respondent proposed to set up a Marine Terminal Facility (MTF) along the sea coast near Cuddalore by constructing an island jetty, that after offloading the same from the ship, through an under sea pipeline, pump the same to a landfall point and that thereafter to transfer the same from the landfall point to the PVC plant through an underground pipeline at a depth of 3.5 mtrs, housed in a concrete chamber. The plant is stated to be located 2.5 km away from the said point. As per its working schedule the pipeline is to cross the Uppanar creek and the project envisaged the laying of pipeline at a depth of 3.5 metres below the river bed. The first respondent is stated to have submitted its application for environment clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short -MoEF-) to carryout the pipeline project as well as the MTF. The said application was stated to have been filed on 14.11.2005. The first respondent is stated to have got the necessary clearance from the District Coastal Zone Management Authority as well as the State Coastal Zone Management Authority. It is also stated that as directed by the MoEF, the first respondent also submitted a map showing the Low Tide Line (LTL), High Tide Line (HTL), the Coastal Regulation Zone Area (CRZ) abutting the sea as well as the Uppanar Creek. The said map was stated to have been prepared by National Institute of Oceanography and approved by the scientists of the National Institute of Oceanography. The said Institute is stated to be one of the approved authorized agencies of the MoEF. Based on the first respondent's application, MoEF granted its approval and permission for pipeline project as well as the MTF in their proceedings dated 19.12.2005.
(3.) BASED on the said clearance granted by the MoEF, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for short TNPCB) also granted its consent on 14.09.2006, under the Air & Water Acts for the PVC Plant, as well as MTF and the pipeline project of the first respondent. As the laying of the pipeline had to be made underneath the river which belonged to the State Government, the first respondent is stated to have filed an application dated 06.02.2008, to the third respondent which also granted its approval vide letter dated 27.02.2008. The said order of the third respondent dated 27.02.2008, is under challenge in this writ petition. Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of the third respondent dated 27.02.2008, submitted that whatever clearance granted by the MoEF or other Authorities were all relating to the setting up of the MTF viz., establishment of an Island Jetty of the coast near Cuddalore and the same cannot be taken to mean that the first respondent was permitted to lay the pipeline underneath the Uppanar Creek which falls within the CRZ area. The learned senior counsel in his submissions took pains to point out that going by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19.02.1991, as amended upto 25.01.2005, handling of hazardous substance such as the present one viz., VCM was prohibited within the CRZ area except transfer of the said substance from the ship to a point in the ports area, terminals and refineries and vice versa in the port area. According to the learned senior counsel, the ultimate clearance stated to have been granted by the MoEF dated 19.12.2005, cannot be taken to have covered the laying of the pipeline underneath the Uppanar river which also falls within the CRZ area. The learned senior counsel also contended that the impugned order does not refer to any valid clearance granted in favour of the first respondent for laying the pipeline underneath the river falling within Survey Nos. 132, 133 and 134 within which Survey numbers the CRZ along side the Uppanar Creek falls. The learned senior counsel therefore contended that what is prohibited under the Notification dated 19.02.1991, issued under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 could not have been granted under the impugned order dated 27.02.2008.;