2010 Supreme(SC) 218

2010 (2) Supreme 358
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.G. Balakrishanan, CJ,R. M. Lodha and Dr.B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
M. Nizamudeen — Appellant
versus
M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7101 of 2009)
Decided on : 10-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that if exception has been 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 purpose.

Headnote:Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- Section 2(d)- Respondent M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited proposed to set up a project for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District (Tamil Nadu) - The MOEF accorded environmental clearance to project proposed by Chemplast subject to strict compliance to specific and general conditions laid down -Chemplast in their proposal also proposed to install a Marine Terminal Facility near the seashore at Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from ships to the PVC plant through underground pipeline- Environmental clearance was granted by MOEF for construction of revetment for setting up of MTF – Application made by Chemplast to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Vellar Basin Division,WRO, Vridhachalam seeking permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed-Grant of permission by Executive Engineer - In less than a month Executive Engineer, cancelled said permission observing that VCM may cause pollution and health hazard to public-Writ petition thereagainst – Allowed by High Court -PIL filed by appellant praying that order passed by Executive Engineer be quashed and Chemplast be directed to forebear from laying of pipelines for drawing VCM raw-material from jetty to their plant in Semmankuppam village- Said writ petition was dismissed by High Court- Appeal -Plea of appellant that 100 meters from High Tide Line (HTL) on both sides of Uppanar river are CRZ-III areas where handling of hazardous substance was prohibited and that VCM was hazardous substance - Held while giving approval to 1996 Plan, the MOEF appended, inter alia, a condition that government of Tamil Nadu would not make any change in approved categorization of CRZ area without its prior approval- Seen thus, 1996 Plan for the purposes of demarcation and classification of CRZ area in the state of Tamil Nadu had to be treated as final and conclusive and had been rightly treated as such by the MOEF- Hence held that Uppanar river and its banks at relevant place where pipelines laid by the Chemplast pass did not fall under CRZ III area as per 1996 Plan and no environmental clearance was needed for such pipelines- The stand of MOEF was, that they have granted permission to the onshore pipelines insofar as these pass through CRZ abutting the sea, i.e. 500 meters from the HTL and no clearance had been granted as it was not required for laying of pipelines under the Uppanar river was held justified- Objection of appellant pales into insignificance in view of finding that land portion of the banks of Uppanar river where the pipelines laid by Chemplast pass Uppanar river did not fall under CRZ III area. (Paras 28 to 33)

        Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- Section 2(d)- Respondent M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited proposed to set up a project for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District (Tamil Nadu) - The MOEF accorded environmental clearance to project proposed by Chemplast -Chemplast in their proposal also proposed to install a Marine Terminal Facility near the seashore at Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from ships to the PVC plant through underground pipeline- Environmental clearance was granted by MOEF for construction of revetment for setting up of MTF –Challenge thereagainst -Paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification prohibits manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous substances, as specified in the Notifications issued by MOEF except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and refineries and vice-versa, in the port areas- No dispute that VCM is hazardous substance notified vide notification dated November 27, 1989 -Again no dispute, that handling of a substance includes transfer as per Section 2(d) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- Contention of appellant/petitioner that transfer of VCM in CRZ area is completely prohibited and VCM cannot be carried through the CRZ except in the port area- Held scope of expression, “except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and refineries and vice versa in port areas” which was added in paragraph 2(ii) on 9th July, 1997 was to be ascertained- Notwithstanding imperfection of expression and that exception clause is not happily worded, held that by applying purposive construction, the expression, `in the port areas’ should be read as, `in or through the port areas’- The exception in paragraph 2 (ii) then would achieve its objective and read, `except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, ships to terminals and ships to refineries and vice versa, in or through the port areas’- This construction would be harmonious with paragraph 3(2)(ii) which permits the activity of laying pipelines in the CRZ area- No infirmity found in the permission granted by the MOEF - No illegality found in the permission granted by Executive Engineer either-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 33 to 36)

        Interpretation of statutes-It is well settled that if exception has been 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 purpose- Purposive construction has often been employed to avoid a lacuna and to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy- It is again a settled rule that if the language used is capable of bearing more than one construction and if construction is employed that results in absurdity or anomaly, such construction has to be rejected and preference should be given to such a construction that brings it into harmony with its purpose and avoids absurdity or anomaly as it may always be presumed that while employing a particular language in the provision absurdity or anomaly was never intended. (Paras 33)

       Facts of the Case :

        Respondent M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited proposed to set up a project for manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District (Tamil Nadu) herein in the instant case.The MOEF accorded environmental clearance to project proposed by Chemplast subject to strict compliance to specific and general conditions laid down .Chemplast in their proposal also proposed to install a Marine Terminal Facility near the seashore at Chitrapettai Village for receiving and transferring VCM from ships to the PVC plant through underground pipeline. Environmental clearance was granted by MOEF for construction of revetment for setting up of MTF . Application was made by Chemplast to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Vellar Basin Division,WRO, Vridhachalam seeking permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. Permission was granted by Executive Engineer . In less than a month Executive Engineer, cancelled said permission observing that VCM may cause pollution and health hazard to public.Writ petition thereagainst was Allowed by High Court .PIL filed by appellant praying that order passed by Executive Engineer be quashed and Chemplast be directed to forebear from laying of pipelines for drawing VCM raw-material from jetty to their plant in Semmankuppam village.Said writ petition was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held while giving approval to 1996 Plan, the MOEF appended, inter alia, a condition that government of Tamil Nadu would not make any change in approved categorization of CRZ area without its prior approval. Seen thus, 1996 Plan for the purposes of demarcation and classification of CRZ area in the state of Tamil Nadu had to be treated as final and conclusive and had been rightly treated as such by the MOEF. Hence held that Uppanar river and its banks at relevant place where pipelines laid by the Chemplast pass did not fall under CRZ III area as per 1996 Plan and no environmental clearance was needed for such pipelines. The stand of MOEF was, that they have granted permission to the onshore pipelines insofar as these pass through CRZ abutting the sea, i.e. 500 meters from the HTL and no clearance had been granted as it was not required for laying of pipelines under the Uppanar river was held justified. Objection of appellant pales into insignificance in view of finding that land portion of the banks of Uppanar river where the pipelines laid by Chemplast pass Uppanar river did not fall under CRZ III area. Apart from that scope of expression, “except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and refineries and vice versa in port areas” which was added in paragraph 2(ii) on 9th July,1997 was to be ascertained. Notwithstanding imperfection of expression and that exception clause is not happily worded, held that by applying purposive construction, the expression, `in the port areas’ should be read as, `in or through the port areas’. The exception in paragraph 2 (ii) then would achieve its objective and read, `except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, ships to terminals and ships to refineries and vice versa, in or through the port areas’. This construction would be harmonious with paragraph 3(2)(ii) which permits the activity of laying pipelines in the CRZ area. No infirmity was found in the permission granted by the MOEF .No illegality was found in the permission granted by Executive Engineer either. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.