ORDER :- This application has been made by Shriram Foods and Fertiliser Industries (hereinafter referred to as Shriram) for clarification in respect of certain conditions set out in the Order passed by us on 17th February, 1986 in Writ Petn Nos. 12739 of 1985 and 26 of 1986 : (Reported in AIR 1987 SC 965). Though the application has been styled as an application for clarification, it is really and in substance, an application for modification of some of the conditions contained in the Order. We passed the Order permitting Shriram to restart its power plant as also plants for manufacture of caustic chlorine including its by-products like sodium sulphate, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder, superchlor and sodium hypochlorite and vanaspati refined oil including its by products and recovery plants like soap, glycerine and technical hard oil, but we made the permission subject to certain conditions which, we insisted, should be strictly and scrupulously followed by Shriram and we made it clear that if at any time it is found that any one or more of these conditions are violated, the permission would be liable to be withdrawn. There are three out of these conditions in respect of which modification is sought by Shriram on the ground that compliance with these conditions would entail certain operational and practical difficulties.

2. The first condition in respect of which modification is sought by Shriram is condition No. 2 which runs as follows :

"(2) One operator should be designated as personally responsible for each safety device or measure and the head of the caustic chlorine division should be made individually responsible for the efficient operation of such safety device or measure. If at any time during examination by the Expert Committee or inspection by the Inspectorate it is found that any safety device or measure is inoperative or is not properly functioning, the head of the caustic chlorine plant as well as the operator in charge of such safety device or measure shall be held personally responsible. Their duty shall be not merely to report non-functioning or mal-functioning of any safety device or measure to the higher authority but to see that the operation of the entire plant is immediately shut-down, the safety device is urgently replenished and the plant does not restart functioning until such replenishment is completed."

It is urged on behalf of Shriram that there are more than 150 safety devices in the plant and it is not possible to have an individual operator to be made personally responsible for each device and, moreover, considering the magnitude of the responsibility for efficient operation of a safety device, it would not be proper to impose such responsibility on an operator who is merely a workman but that such responsibility should be cast on an officer to be placed in charge of a group of safety devices. Shriram also submitted that the condition that if any safety device is found to be non-functioning or mal-functioning, the operation of the entire plant should immediately be shut down also requires to be modified, firstly, because failure of every kind of safety device need not require the shutting down of the entire plant from the safety point of view; secondly, because the operator in charge of any particular safety device would not have control or knowledge of the entire plant and he would not, therefore, be in a position to take a decision regarding the stoppage of the plant and, thirdly, because frequent stoppage and restart of the plant would by itself be a potent source of hazard. We find considerable force in this contention urged on behalf of Shriram. We agree that every kind of safety device installed in the plant need not require the shutting down of the entire plant in the event of its nonfunctioning or mal-functioning. There are three different categories of safety devices which have to be taken into account. The first category consists of safety devices which are for the entire factor