M. NIZAMUDDIN versus M/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 10-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 315 
M. NIZAMUDDIN 
V. 
MIS. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2010) 
MARCH 10, 2010 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.M. LODHA AND DR. 
B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991: 
Paragraph 3(3)(i) - Uppanar river and its banks adjacent 
A 
B 
c 
to the plant in Thiyagavalli village where the pipeline crosses 
Uppanar river does not come under the CRZ area - On facts, 
MOEF rightly granted permission to the onshore pipelines 
insofar as these pass through the CRZ abutting the sea, i.e. 
D 
500 meters from the HTL and no clearance was required for 
laying of pipelines under the Uppanar river - Coastal Zone 
Management Plan of Tamil Nadu, 1996 - Environment 
Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(d). 
Paragraph 2(ii) - Transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) . E 
beyond port area to the PVC plant through pipelines -
Permissibility - Held: Paragraph 2(ii) permits transfer of 
hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and 
refineries and vice-versa, in the port areas. 
Coastal Zone Management Plan of Tamil Nadu, 1996: 
Demarcation plan prepared by National Institute of 
Oceanography- Held: Shall not prevail over the 1996 Plan. 
F 
Interpretation of statutes: 
G 
Mischief rule - If exception is added to remedy the 
mischief or defect, it should be so construed that remedies 
the mischief and not in a manner which frustrates the very 
315 
H 
316 
S_UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A purpose - Purposive construction to be employed to avoid a 
lacuna and to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy 
- Coastal Ragulation Zone Notification, 1991 - Paragraph 
2(ii). 
8 
Chemplast Ltd. proposed to set up a project for 
manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Cuddalore 
District, Tamil Nadu. Chemplast was also required to 
import, a raw material Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) for 
manufacturing PVC. Chemplast proposed to install a 
C Marine Terminal Facility (MTF) near the seashore at 
Chittrapettai village for receiving and transferring VCM 
from ships to the PVC plant through underground 
pipeline. 
Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) granted 
D environmental clearance on 19.12.2005 under the 
provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 199( 
TNPCB in the light of the environmental clearance dated 
19.12.2005 granted by MOEF accorded its consent on 
14.9.2006 for the PVC plant as well as MTF and pipeline 
E project of the Chemplast. 
Chemplast made an application on February 6, 2008 
to the Executive Engineer, PWD seeking permission for 
carrying seawater .and raw-materials through pipelines 
laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. The Executive 
F 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 permission observing that VCM may cause 
pollution and health hazard to the public. 
G 
The order cancelling permission was challenged by 
Chemplast by filing writ petition before the High Court. 
The High Court allowed writ petition. Thereafter appellant 
filed PIL praying that the order passed by Executive 
H Engineer on February 27, 2008 be quashed and 
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND317 
ORS. 
Chemplast be directed to forbear from laying of pipelines A 
for drawing VCM raw material from jetty to their plant. High 
Court dismissed the writ petition. A writ petition was filed 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before 
Supreme Court by another individual challenging the 
permission granted by MOEF on 19.12.2005. Three more B 
writ petitions came to be filed before High Court 
challenging environmental clearances granted by the 
MOEF to Chemplast. The appellant also sought transfer 
of these petitions to this Court. IA7 was made therein for 
deletion of respondent 21 and 22. The writ petition, appeal c 
against the impugned judgment of High Court, transfer 
petitions and IAs were heard together in these inatters. 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
matters were whether Uppanar river and its banks at the 
point where pipelines pass, fall in the CRZ Ill area; and D 
whether paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification restricts 
transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond port area 
to the PVC plant through pipelines. 
Dismissing the writ petition and the appeal as well as E 
IA for initiating contempt proceedings against MOEF and 
disposing of the Transfer Petitions and IA7, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Coastal R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.