LexMS. KAMINI JAISWAL, ADVOCATE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B MS. KAMINI JAISWAL, ADVOCATE· v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MARCH 4, 1997 [A.M. AHMADI, CJ. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 32-Public Interest Litiga- tio.rt-Filed by an Advocate for closure of gas pipelines laid by GAIL and C ONGC until an independent inquiry by experts is conducted and they certify and declare that these pipelines are safe for further operation-Petition resulted from actual gas leakage from the gas pipelines near Dhaula Kuan in New Delhi-Held, no further action is required in view of the detailed infonnation furnished by GAIL and the necessary preventive measures taken by it. D The petitioner filed the present public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the high pressure gas pipelines laid by GAIL and/or ONGC were unsafe in certain specified places and were potentially hazardous. She prayed for the closure of the pipelines until an independent inquiry was conducted and they E certified and declared that those pipelines were safe for further operation. She contended that the pipelines had not been laid as per applicable international standards, ANSl/ASME B 31.8 of 82. The specific averments in the petition related to the DESU Maruti Spurline laid by GAIL. Accord- ing to the petitioner, the terms and conditions on which GAIL had given F the contract for laying the pipeline had not been complied with. G. GAIL filed a detailed affidavit in reply to the petitioner's allegations. It also filed detailed technical material on the subject, as well as three reports of experts in connection with the laying of the DESU-Maruti Spurline and in connection with the safety of its pipeline system. GAIL submitted· that in laying tbe DESU-Maruti Spurline the con- tractor defaulted in many ways and the gas leakage at Dhaula Kuan was the result of defective workmanship. After that, the contract was ter- minated. GAIL appointed a committee to pinpoint lapses and to suggest H corrective measures. The committee noted that the specifications in the 650 KAMINIJAISWAL, ADV. v. U.O.I. 651 tender were very clear, exhaustive and adequate to take care of the safety A aspects but some of the specifications were not taken care of by the contractor. The committee submitted a detailed report containing sugges· tions for quality compliance in totality. GAIL also carried out a post-construction integrity survey through B Sofregaz, an international agency known for its expertise in the area. It was asked to carry out investigation and report whether safe engineering practices had been followed during the construction of the existing underground pipelines. It was required to report on the stat11s of pipelines, critical areas, preventive measures, disaster management plan, remedies and recommendations. The report provided that on general C assessment there was no apparent alarming deficiency in the pipelines in respect of safe operation and safety of life and property. As regards the depth ·of cover over the pipelines, it considered it to be wen within the acceptable limit with reference to the standard followed by GAZ DE FRANCE in normal condition of operation. GAIL took action in com- D pliance with each of the recommendations contained in the Sofregaz report. It was pointed out that the expert report of Sofregaz was the outcome of a post-construction integrity survey for pipelines in and around Delhi. GAIL pointed out that high . pressure gas pipelines owned and operated by it across the country were laid as per international standards E and in fact even more stringent standards . than the international code ANSI 31.8. A detailed status report was also submitted dealing with di".erse aspects of maintenance of the pipeline network in the country. The stream- F lining of pipelines achieved over a period led to GAIL obtaining certifica- tion by International Organisation for Standardization (ISO 9002) and conferment of the Oil Industry Safety Award to GAIL for the year 1992-93. GAIL took important decisions to streamline the procedures in the matter of execution of works. G Disposing of the writ petition, this Court HELD: No further directions are required as GAIL.has been at pains to allay the apprehensions expressed by the petition. No further . action is required in view of the detailed information furnished by GAIL H 652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.