Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Ker) 176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Meera R. Nair, W/o. Sandeep Pillai and D/o. Radhakrishnan Nair & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by Add. Chief Secretary to Government, Government Secretariat & Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 19715 of 2021, WP(C) No. 21861 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Tissy Rose K. Cheriyan, Royce Chirayil.
For the Respondents: Saji Varghese, K.R. Vinod, M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan Mohammed Raiz S., Smt. Rekha Aggarwal S.C. and Smt. K. Ammini Kutty SR.G.P.

Point of Law : To construct a Pipeline avoiding every residential area - whether there are constructed buildings thereon or otherwise - would be a sisyphean task, if not an impossible one

Headnote:
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 - S. 3(1) - Proposed SV Station - Residential colony - Laying of the Pipeline, as also the establishment of the “SV Station” through the properties within the “Colony”, is an affront to their constitutional rights and in violation of their guarantees to healthy and safe life - whether the impugned Section 3(1) Notification causes any statutory or real prejudice, as has been alleged by them.
Finding of the Court :
From the scheme of the afore Statute, it is only if a person has any interest over the property notified, will he or she obtain a right to file objections and to be heard by the competent Authority - Pipelines and the “SV Station” will be operationalized only after the necessary “Qualitative Risk Assessment” and such other unexpendable steps and measures are complied with and completed in terms of the “Regulations”, either by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Body or its accredited Agency.
Result : Closed.

JUDGMENT :

The Kochi–Salem Pipeline Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as KSPPL for ease) is a joint Venture of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), with 50% equity participation each. They are presently engaged in a project of connecting the Dispatch Terminals at Kochi Refinery and Puthu Vypeen, with the Receipt Terminals at Udayamperoor, Palakkal, Coimbatore, Erode and Salem of the Liquified Petroleum Plants of BPCL/IOCL.

2. The petitioners in these two cases are stated to be residing in a “residential Colony” (hereinafter referred to as the “Colony” for ease) and they assail the laying of the Liquified Petroleum Gas Pipeline (Pipeline) by the KSPPL through areas adjacent to theirs residences, and the establishment of the Sectionalizing Valve Station (SV Station) in a plot within the “Colony” as part of the afore Project.

3. The petitioners assert that various plots in the “Colony” have either been constructed upon with residential houses or are intended for such; and therefore, that the action of the KSPPL in identifying the lands within it for the purpose of the establishment of the Gas Pipeline and “SV Station” is egregiously improper and will cause cataclysmic consequences if any accident is to happen in future. They thus contend that laying of the Pipeline, as also the establishment of the “SV Station” through the properties within the “Colony”, is an affront to their constitutional rights and in violation of their guarantees to healthy and safe life.

4. I have heard Dr. K.P. Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021; Smt. Tissy Rose K. Cheriyan – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021; Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar – learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation; Sri. Saji Varghese – learned Standing Counsel for the Kochi–Salem Pipeline Private Limited (KSPPL); Smt. Rekha Agarwal – learned Standing Counsel for Thrikkakara Municipality; Sri. K.R. Vinod – learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021 and the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt. K. Amminikutty, appearing for the State of Kerala and its functionaries.

5. Among the afore two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.19715/2021 has been filed challenging Ext.P4, which is stated to be a notification issued by the competent Authority under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “P&MP Act”, for short); while W.P.(C) No.21861/2021 calls into question the same notification, however, limiting it to the extent to which the “SV Station” is proposed to be set up in the property of a private individual, who is arrayed as respondent No.4 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021 (who will hereinafter referred to by name “Sri. Mathew K.J.”).

6. Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan – learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, commenced her submissions assailing Ext.P4, which she asserted is a notification under Section 3(1) of the “P & MP Act”, saying that it would perspicuously establish that the original route of the Gas Pipeline had been changed and that certain additional properties have been included therein. She argued that this was not done after a proper study, as is mandated under the provisions of either the “P & MP Act” or the Petroleum and Natural gas Regulatory Board (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipelines Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations” for short).

7. Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan then vehemently contended that, going by the “Regulations”, a Pipeline or an “SV Station” can be installed only in the manner as postulated thereunder, which makes it ineluctable that thickly populated areas have to be excluded and a proper Environmental Impact Assessment, Risk Analysis Study, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) and Hazard Analysis Study (HAZ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document