Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2453 (MAD)

M. S. Sai Kumar v. Government of Puducherry rep

2010-06-18

G.M.AKBAR ALI, PRABHA SRIDEVAN

body2010
Judgment :- Prabha Sridevan, J. This is a public interest litigation filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from establishing Block Value Station and Pipeline Industry in the river bed area of Godavari of Yanam, Dariyalatippa Village, Adivipolan in T.S.No.F/11/22/1, Union Territory of Puducherry without due process of law as laid down under the Madras River Conservancy Act, 1884. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER: The petitioner as a resident of Yanam apprehends that there will be environmental damage if the project of the 6th respondent is established. The 1st respondent and the 6th respondent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the implementation of natural gas development project. The establishment of the station falls within the Union Territory of Puducherry of the coast of Yanam. The petitioner claims that as a resident of Yanam, he is entitled to submit his objections to the establishment of the project which will have negative environmental impact. He has personally visited the area called Dariyalatippa. According to him, 25% of the residents of Yanam are fishermen and they depend on river Godavari for their livelihood and if this project is not halted, then, by virtue of the destruction of coconut plantation and mangrove forests, the possibility of flooding would increase. He further contends that mangrove forests are a rare species of vegetation and they must be protected from destruction. The river and river bed area have to be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act, 1884. It is submitted by the petitioner that the establishment of the Block Value Station and pipeline Industry ignoring the provisions of the Act must be halted. He has made as parties, The Regional Administrator, O/o the Regional Administrator, Yanam as 3rd respondent, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Yanam, Puducherry as 4th respondent and The Member Secretary, Yanam Planning Authority, Yanam, Puducherry as 5th respondent who are responsible for giving approval for construction, for inviting public objections if any, for charge of use of land from agriculture to industrial use. According to him, when he knew that the 6th respondent had applied for change of user and he went to the office of the 4th respondent to stop the violation of statutory environmental safeguards, the 4th respondent expressed helplessness. According to him, when he knew that the 6th respondent had applied for change of user and he went to the office of the 4th respondent to stop the violation of statutory environmental safeguards, the 4th respondent expressed helplessness. There was a public hearing where he was informed that permission was granted by the River Conservator of Andhra Pradesh. According to him the River Conservator of Andhra Pradesh has no jurisdiction to grant permission for change of land user. He has alleged that originally the plant was to have been installed in Andhra Pradesh, but it has been shifted to Yanam only to avoid payment of higher taxes and with ulterior motive. It is alleged that because of the cutting of trees, the intensity of wind force during cyclone time will increase and will have a disastrous impact on the citizens. The huge trucks used by the 6th respondent for the purpose of construction will weaken the flood bank. According to him, because of the dredging operations of the 6th respondent, the production ring bund around Island No.3 is sinking. It is stated that unless all these activities are stopped, the ecological system will be put to great loss and hardship. Along with the affidavit, the petitioner had produced several photographs to show that the installation of the Block Value Station will result in cutting down of trees. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader, Puducherry as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 4. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 The learned Government Advocate submitted that the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act had not been extended to Union Territory of Puducherry and in this regard had produced the Puducherry Extension of Laws Act, 1968 and the Puducherry Laws Regulation 1963. In the First Schedule to the Puducherry Laws Regulation Act, which is the regulation which extended to certain acts to the Union Territory of Puducherry, the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act is not included. In fact, all the Acts that are included in the schedule are Central Acts. The Puducherry Extension of Laws Act, 1968 is an Act to extend certain Central Acts to the Union Territory of Puducherry. Therefore, without further enquiry we may safely conclude that by this Act, the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act could not have been extended to the Union Territory of Puducherry. The Puducherry Extension of Laws Act, 1968 is an Act to extend certain Central Acts to the Union Territory of Puducherry. Therefore, without further enquiry we may safely conclude that by this Act, the Madras Rivers Conservancy Act could not have been extended to the Union Territory of Puducherry. We have already extracted the prayer. We could have rejected the prayer of the petitioner on this ground alone. However, since he has raised several important issues in public interest, we have heard the respondents at length and gone through the various documents produced by them on behalf of the Union Territory of Puducherry and the 6th respondent and we will deal with them. 5. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 would show that the 6th respondent had purchased lands measuring more than 120 acres in a strip by the side of the Flood Bank in Darialathippa, Yanam. According to the Counter, all the above lands are private holdings and there are no mangroves but only coconut trees. The mangroves are located in the lands belonging to the Government and these lands have not been taken by the 6th respondent. According to this counter, the 6th respondent with a view to draw gas from the Bay of Bengal established a Block Value Station to control the flow of gas, thereafter to route the gas through pipeline, which stretches nearly 2.50 kms within the Yanam region. The 6th respondent’s processing facilities and production of any industrial item including effluent landing do not take place within the Union Territory of Puducherry. They have been established in Gadimoga in Andhra Pradesh. According to this counter, the proposals of the 6th respondent within the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Puducherry includes construction of Getty, Sub-station, Block Value Station, Control Cabin Building, Haul Road, Roro jetty, line of gas pipe line etc. According to this counter, the activities are not industrial in nature but only feeders to the main industrial process. On 05.12.2006 vide order No.1-12/2006-Hg/A1 objections were invited from the public. The petitioner herein also submitted his objection. According to the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, a Committee was constituted. The petitioner was heard. After conducting a spot study, the Committee appears to have over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Government. On 05.12.2006 vide order No.1-12/2006-Hg/A1 objections were invited from the public. The petitioner herein also submitted his objection. According to the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Act, a Committee was constituted. The petitioner was heard. After conducting a spot study, the Committee appears to have over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and submitted a report to the Government. While the representation for land use conversion was still under consideration of the Government, the 6th respondent filed an appeal to the Town and Country Planning Board requesting to convert the land from agriculture to industrial. The request of the 6th respondent was placed before the Town and Country Planning Board Meeting held on 19.11.2009 and after deliberations they concluded that since no industrial activity is proposed by the 6th respondent in that area, whatever the 6th respondent proposed to do within the Union Territory of Puducherry can be interpreted as “Petrol and Other Fuel Filling Stations” and the same is permissible in Agricultural zones as per the Puducherry Building Bye Laws and Zoning Regulations. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for Puducherry Government referred to Puducherry Building Bye-Laws and Zoning Regulations, 1972. In Part II which relates to issuing regulations, it classifies zones into various categories like Residential Zone, Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone and Institutional Zone, Agricultural Zone, Public and Semipublic Zone, Open space, parks and playgrounds Zone and Green Belt Zone. It is admitted by all that these lands come under Agricultural Zone. The uses permitted for “Agricultural Zone” include Petrol and other fuel filling stations. The Board concluded that the flow of gas which is drawn from the sea and which is regulated by the Block Value Station would come under Petrol and Other Fuel Filling Stations and that this is permissible in agricultural zone also. But by this time, the 6th respondent had already constructed the Block Value Station. Therefore, the Board decided to regularise the buildings, which had been constructed before permission was obtained. Further according to Respondents 1 to 5 the Superintending Engineer, (Irrigation and Flood Control, Dowleswaram, Andhra Pradesh) is the present Conservator of Godavari River and in his letter dated 23.08.2006 to Public Works Department, Yanam it is stated that since the land is within the limit of Puducherry Government, the grant of permission must be decided by the Union Territory of Puducherry. According to the respondent, because of the construction of a jetty, the flow of flood water will not be affected. It is specifically stated in paragraph 11 of the counter that the Madras River Conservatory Act, 1884 has not been extended to the Union Territory of Puducherry. The case of respondents 1 to 5 is that in the privately held lands there are no mangrove forests and the 6th respondent had acquired only private lands. It is also stated that the environmental impact caused by the laying of pipelines was studied by the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and also National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) who have given their reports. It is reiterated that the project for production of natural gas falls within the region of Andhra Pradesh and what is undertaken within the Yanam Region is restricted to non-industrial activities which will not affect the flora and fauna of the region. According to them, considering the importance of use of natural gas, this project received acceptance. 7. Ms. Mala, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner is without basis. If and when industrial activity is commenced by 6th respondent within the Yanam region, all the safeguards will be insisted upon. 8. CASE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT:-Mr. A.L. Somayaji learned Senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submitted that this public interest litigation petition should be dismissed as use of natural gas is of great national importance and that this project is now producing approximately 45 Million Standard Cubic Meters, which is equivalent to 50% of the total gas production in the country. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is a necessity for clean and green fuel. The respondent must be allowed to tap one of the largest resources of natural gas. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondent had got clearance from all the statutory authorities for its activities and the respondent had also requested a study to be made both the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to ensure that there is no ecological and environmental damage. According to the learned Senior Counsel after the pipeline was laid, the trenches have been filled back with sand and river bed has been restored to the original level. According to the learned Senior Counsel after the pipeline was laid, the trenches have been filled back with sand and river bed has been restored to the original level. The learned Senior counsel reiterated that the natural gas is an environment-friendly fuel and therefore the project has a great importance as the first ever deep water development programme in the country. The learned Senior Counsel also produced the reports filed by the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to show that the project will not harm the environment. It was also submitted that a similar prayer was made before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by a detailed order, had considered and rejected all the objections. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that any environmental impact can happen only within the territory of Andhra Pradesh, since that is where the industrial activity takes place. But within the territory of Yanam the only activity is the extraction of gas and regulation of the flow of gas with safety measures. The 6th respondent carries on no other activity within the Union Territory of Puducherry. He submitted that there were three options (three corridors) for the laying of the pipeline and the respondent has only adopted that option which was recommended by NEERI AND NIO, even though it involves greater expenditure. 9. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to various measures that have been allegedly undertaken by the 6th respondent after the Block Valve Station was established. The relevant averments in the counter are extracted hereunder:- “(i) the project cost is about Rs. 38 crores (ii) it involves the following features:- -Drilling of sub sea wells using deep water rigs -Offshore oil production facilities -Sub sea gas production facilities -Laying of pipelines from offshore to onshore facilities -Onshore hydrocarbon handling facilities -Delivery of gas to on land cross country pipeline for distribution of gas from onshore facilities to various parts of the country (iii) After the gas is drawn, it should be brought to the coast for further transaction to the consumers and the pipelines reach online at the Village Darialathippa in Yanam and pipelines proceeds for a stretch of 3.7 kms to reach the onshore terminal located in the Gadimoga. The Pipelines are buried at more than one meter depth from the ground level. The Pipelines are buried at more than one meter depth from the ground level. The Block Value Station is a physical facility of a set of valves to be activated either automatically or manually. They are controlled from the Master Control Station. No other process or activity is involved. The respondent had engaged National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) to conduct environmental impact assessment which are mandatory requirements. As per the E.I.A. Notification dated 27.01.1994 the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) considered three alignments for laying the pipeline and the respondent had implemented the best option suggested by NIO after obtaining necessary approvals/clearance from Godavari River Conservator. The respondent incurred substantial additional cost to ensure that no damage is done to the mangroves. The gas produced from the Block is transmitted through land cross country pipeline network from the onshore terminal through the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The respondent also submits that there are significant benefits from this project and the gas produced from this project will not only be used in the agricultural sector but also in power plants, steel plants, fertilizer plants, public transport and also domestic gas distribution network. The respondent has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M C Mehta vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (3) SCC 767 = 2001-1-L.W.449, which made it mandatory for all public transport to run on Compressed Natural Gas and thus would stress the importance of their project.” 10. According to the respondent, requisite permissions clearances and no objection have been obtained and in this regard the averments in the counter as follows: 1. “Environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India - letter dated 09.07.2004. The clearance is for the entire project from laying of gas evacuation pipelines to the onshore terminal and pipelines onland. 2. Permission from AP State Government:- order dated 7th August 2003 (consent to establish) and order dated 12th September, 2008 and 9th August, 2009 (consent to operate). These consents have been provided both under the Water and Air act as well as Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules. 3. Permission from Puducherry Government – letter dated 16th June, 2006 by which no objection was granted for installation and operation of Block Valve Station. 4. These consents have been provided both under the Water and Air act as well as Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules. 3. Permission from Puducherry Government – letter dated 16th June, 2006 by which no objection was granted for installation and operation of Block Valve Station. 4. Permission to lay pipeline in the riverbed – The Government of Andhra Pradesh has appointed an Executive Engineer, Godavari Headworks Division, Dowalieswaran as River Conservator by G.O.M.No.138 dated 16th August 2004. 5. Permission to lay pipeline in the onland section: - Government of Puducherry has granted no objection to construct Jetty, Block Valve Station etc. vide letter dated 07th September, 2006. -The Member Secretary, Town and Country Planning Board, Government of Puducherry vide is letter dated 15th September, 2006 have decided to consider the case for land conversion from ‘Agriculture’ to Industrial use after obtaining necessary clearance. 6. Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation – Approval has been obtained vide letter dated 20.09.2007 7. Right of Use under Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 – Government has issued necessary gazette notification dated 04.04.2009. 8. Permission for construction and Operation of Jetty in Godavari River by letter dated 5th June 2006 – The Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation) having jurisdiction had accorded permission.” 11. On the basis of the above averments, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the project has been undertaken by the 6th respondent only after obtaining necessary permission. They have also mentioned that they have undertaken to carry out series of welfare measures for local persons and population, which reads as follows:- “(a) construction of internal village roads (b) construction of drainages in surrounding villages (c) Construction of community/convention halls (d) renovation of temples (e) renovation of schools and play grounds (f) renovation of playgrounds and parks (g) development of burial grounds/crematorium (h) setting up of public health center (i) construction of raw water storage facilities (j) providing wheelchair to disabled (k) organising youth festival (l) construction of public toilets (m) Organising sports and game tournaments (n) providing uniform and note books and other materials to the students”. 12. The counter also mentions certain additional welfare measures, which read as follows:- -“A Fishing Jetty cum Drying Platform for supporting fishermen of the locality was constructed and it was inaugurated by Hon’ble Minister for Excise and Revenue Government of Puducherry on 16th August, 2009. 12. The counter also mentions certain additional welfare measures, which read as follows:- -“A Fishing Jetty cum Drying Platform for supporting fishermen of the locality was constructed and it was inaugurated by Hon’ble Minister for Excise and Revenue Government of Puducherry on 16th August, 2009. -A tower in likeness of Eiffel tower is under construction in Yanam to enhance tourism industry of Yanam. - Aesthetics development is in progress near the beach for tourists’ attraction including erection of Bharathamatha & Jesus Christ Statues and Nagur Meera Sahib Darga. - Laying & Development of 2 km stretch of Kanakalapeta Road and approach to the river front along with a toilet block and handed over to community - Constructed and handed over a new burial ground in Daryalatippa village and improved amenities of burial ground near Kanakalapeta village, in Yanam.” 13. It is specifically stated by the 6th respondent that the 6th respondent has committed to plant 1000 coconut trees to replace the removal of 200 coconut trees which were removed out of 850 have already been planted. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 6th respondent has retained the services of Dr.M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation, a renowned non governmental organisation for regeneration of degraded mangroves. The respondent has denied that it has carried out any unauthorised filling and that the allegation that the heights of the water will increase causing tension to the flood banks is not borne out by any data. 14. The learned Senior counsel submitted that when the respondent had complied with all the requirements, the Public Interest Litigation itself has not been filed bona fide. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the engagement of M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation has nothing to do with the project and yet as a policy of Corporate Social government, these steps have been undertaken. 15. The learned Senior counsel also produced a Common Application Form for single window industrial clearances and referred to several of these columns. Column 8 deals with whether the Industrial undertaking is proposed to be started in an existing building. The entry is the proposal is for installing a valve station at Daryalatippa and laying of pipelines through the land. No buildings are proposed as no manufacturing is involved. Column 8 deals with whether the Industrial undertaking is proposed to be started in an existing building. The entry is the proposal is for installing a valve station at Daryalatippa and laying of pipelines through the land. No buildings are proposed as no manufacturing is involved. It also found in this application that “Project does not involve any processing and do not cause pollutants as it only laying pipelines to carry natural gas, which is clean fuel”. “No emission are generated in proposed project”, “No waste water is generated in the proposed project”, “No solid wastes are generated in the project”. 16. ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES OF UNION TERRITORY, PUDUCHERRY:- We will now refer to some of the important documents:- (1) On 16.06.2006 no objection certificate was issued by the Pondicherry Pollution Control Committee:- Several conditions have been imposed on the 6th respondent. It is submitted by the respondent that conditions Nos.1 to 3 have not been obtained, which are as follows:- - The applicant shall obtain approval from the Collector, Pondicherry for the revised pipeline route - The applicant shall obtain land conversion clearance from the Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Board - The applicant shall comply with the environmental protection measures and safe guards recommended in the Environment Impact Assessment and Risk Assessment Reports for onshore facilities prepared by NEERI, Nagpur. (2) There is a memorandum of Understanding between the 6th respondent and the Union Territory of Puducherry dated 23.08.1996, for implementation of the project. (3) The Department of Revenue and Disaster Management has issued a memo on 25.10.2007 by which the Deputy Collector, Revenue, Yanam was directed to ascertain the area and jurisdiction where the 6th respondent was excavating the sand and if it falls under the jurisdiction of Union Territory of Puducherry, offence may be booked against them and appropriate royalty amount may be recovered. (4) On 12.04.2008, the Yanam Planning Authority had issued a stop work notice, but be are now informed that against this an appeal has been filed and the appeal had also been allowed. (5) By G.O.Ms.No.3/2008-Ind.A, Department of Industrial development (Industries and Commerce) dated 28.05.2008, the Government of Puducherry recorded that the Lieutenant Government, Puducherry was pleased to accord ex-post facto approval to the MOU entered into by the Government of Puducherry with the 6th respondent. (5) By G.O.Ms.No.3/2008-Ind.A, Department of Industrial development (Industries and Commerce) dated 28.05.2008, the Government of Puducherry recorded that the Lieutenant Government, Puducherry was pleased to accord ex-post facto approval to the MOU entered into by the Government of Puducherry with the 6th respondent. (6) On 13.06.2008, the Member Secretary, Yanam had issued a notice to stop/stay all works immediately. On 07.09.2006, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Yanam had given his no objection to construct Getty and Block Valve Station. On 15.09.2006 clearance was given by the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning for land conversion from Agriculture of Industrial, after obtaining necessary clearance from the Superintending Engineer, Conservator of Godavari River basin. 17. ORDERS PASSED BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH AUTHORITIES AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT:- The case of the 6th respondent is that the industrial activity is carried on in the State of Andhra Pradesh and so they obtained appropriate consent order. On 07.08.2003 consent order was issued by the Pollution Control Board of Andhra Pradesh for the entire project. On 09.07.2004, the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave the clearance for the entire project. According to the learned Senior Counsel, this permission would also include the drawing of the natural gas. On 16.8.2004 as we have already stated the Executive Engineer, Godavari was appointed as River Conservator. On 08.09.2004, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued certain instructions which deal with dredging of sand in Godavari river bed with which we are not concerned. W.P.No.8293 of 2004 was filed by GAMANA a registered Voluntary Organization for declaring the processing of the application for setting up the processing plan as illegal and violative of the Environmental Act. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held therein that the proposal of the 6th respondent had been cleared by the Government of India taking into consideration all relevant facts. So, the issue also related to the question whether the proposed pipeline passes through the sanctuary and it was held that it does not. According to the 6th respondent, this decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh had actually taken into account even the reports filed by NIO and NEERI and the technical views of the officials and in those circumstances, the present writ petition which requires the 6th respondent to defend the same attack made before the Andhra Pradesh High Court is unwarranted. 18. The Judgment of the A.P.High Court. 18. The Judgment of the A.P.High Court. We will extract the paragraphs in the above judgment relied on by the 6th respondent. “Needless to add that in such like major projects, it cannot be visualized that there will not be any effect on the ecology. Merely that there is bound to be some adverse effect on ecology would not be a ground for judicial interference when the authorities concerned have taken due care and caution of the extent of impact on ecology and granted requisite permissions/sanctions subject to conditions to be complied with by the fourth respondent as per the recommendations made in the environmental management plan and also to comply with various other requirements under the relevant environmental laws. None of the authorities were shown to have by passed any of the provisions of the relevant provisions of relevant environmental laws the rule or the regulation or any deviation from any established standards were pointed out to us. Primary effort of the Court, while dealing with environmental related issues is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, whether a writ petitioner has raised or not raised such questions, would be to see that the enforcement agencies - whether it be Central or State or any other authority – have taken adequate steps for the enforcement of the laws. In regard to intricate technical matters, the Courts will not be fully equipped and necessarily will have to rely on outside expert agencies and unless there is a challenge to such reports of expert agencies, it will not be permissible for the Courts to substitute their own view for the views expressed by the expert agencies. Endeavor of the Court in such like matters would be that no activity, which would ultimately lead to unscientific and unsustainable development and ecological destruction should at all be allowed and the Court must scrupulously try to protect the ecology and environment always keeping in mine that a balance has to be maintained between development and ecology”. 19. REPORTS OF NEERI AND NIO:- NEERI which undertook the Environmental impact assessment studies came to the conclusion and gave the following findings:- “Important findings on the pipeline route:- Three alternative routes for laying pipeline from offshore to onshore terminal were studied (page 101-109) Alternate 1: Shortest pipeline route across Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary – Extensive damage to ecosystem. 19. REPORTS OF NEERI AND NIO:- NEERI which undertook the Environmental impact assessment studies came to the conclusion and gave the following findings:- “Important findings on the pipeline route:- Three alternative routes for laying pipeline from offshore to onshore terminal were studied (page 101-109) Alternate 1: Shortest pipeline route across Coringa Wildlife Sanctuary – Extensive damage to ecosystem. Alternate 2: Route south of Godavari River through reserve forest. Significant environmental impact on mangroves. Alternate 3: Route through sub merged river mouth of Godavari. Additional pipeline length of 10-15 kms in comparison to Alternate 1. Minimal damage to the eco system and no impact on mangroves. This is what is referred to by the 6th respondent. The National Institute of Oceanography also undertook a report and according to them the pipeline corridor through Coringa Wildlife Sanctury (corridor 1) would result in destruction of mangroves. The pipeline corridor through Rathikalva Reserve Forest (Corridor 2) would also result in negative ecological impact and the 3rd alternative, this pipeline route through Godavari Riverbed would be recommended since the waters of Godavari estuary are brackish and for most part the pipelines would be laid through the areas where there are no mangroves. Therefore, it was observed by National Council for Oceanography that though this route is technically more cumbersome and relatively more expensive. This is to be recommended and according to the respondent they have only adopted the 3rd option. 20. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, the counsel for the petitioner, reiterated that mangroves were destroyed and that the project will cause damage. 21. Essar Oil Limited vs. Halar Utkarsh Samithi and Others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 392 dealt with certain issues that are relevant-for us here. That case refers to the laying of pipelines to pump crude oil across the portion of the Marine Park and Marine Sanctuary. A public interest litigation was filed and the Supreme Court referred to the issue of balancing the environmental consideration on one hand and the economical and social needs on the other. “26. Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration giving broad parameters and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are of relevance to the present debate. “26. Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration giving broad parameters and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are of relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides that the natural resources of the earth including air, water, land, flora and fauna especially representative samples of natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the fourth principle says: “man has special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat which are now gravely imperiled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature conservation including wildlife must, therefore, receive importance in planning for economic developments.” There two principles highlight the need to factor in considerations of the environment while providing for economic development. The need for economic development has been dealt with in Principle 8 where it is said that “economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favorable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for improvement of the quality of life.” The importance of maintaining a balance between economic development on the one hand and environment protection on the other is again emphasized in Principle 11 which says: “The environmental, policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present of future development potential of developing countries nor should they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all;” 27. This, therefore, is the aim, namely, to balance economic and social needs on the one hand with environmental considerations on the other. But in a sense all envelopment is an environmental threat. Indeed, the very existence of humanity and the rapid increase in the population together with consequential demands to sustain the population has resulted in the concreting of open lands, cutting down of forest, the filing up of lakes and pollution of water resources and the very air which we breathe. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the alter of the other. However, there need not necessarily be a deadlock between development on the one hand and the environment on the other. The objective of all laws on environment should be to create harmony between the two since neither one can be sacrificed at the alter of the other. This view was also taken by this court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, where it was said (SCC p.296, para 31) “While economic development should not be allowed to take place at the cost of ecology or by causing widespread environment destruction and violation; at the same time the necessity to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic and other development. Both development and environment must go hand in hand, in other words, there should not be development at the cost of environment and vice versa, but there should be development while taking due care and ensuring the protection of environment.” 36. For this purpose the State Government must ask for and obtain an environment-impact report from expert bodies. The applicant must also come forward with an environment-management plan which must be cleared by the experts. To prevent possible future damage, the State Government must also be satisfied that the damage which may be caused is not irreversible and the applicant should be prepared and must sufficiently secure the cost of reversing any damage which might be caused. The State Government should also have in place the necessary infrastructure to maintain periodical surveys and enforce the stipulations subject to which the permit may be granted. In future the State Government should before, granting the approval, also call upon the applicant to publish its proposal so that the public, particularly those who are likely to be affected are made aware of the proposed action through the sanctuary or national park. This will ensure transparency in the process and at least safeguard against a decision of the State Government based solely upon narrow political objectives. Besides, the citizens who have been made responsible to protect the environment have a right to know. There is also a strong link between Article 21 and the right to know particularly where “secret government decisions may affect health, life and livelihood”. The role of voluntary organizations as protective watchdogs to see that there is no unrestrained and unregulated development, cannot be overemphasized. There is also a strong link between Article 21 and the right to know particularly where “secret government decisions may affect health, life and livelihood”. The role of voluntary organizations as protective watchdogs to see that there is no unrestrained and unregulated development, cannot be overemphasized. Voluntary organizations may of course be a front for competitive interests but they cannot all be tarred with the same brush. Our jurisprudence is replete with instances where voluntary organizations have championed the cause of conservation and have been responsible for creating an awareness of the necessity to preserve the environment so that the earth as we know it and humanity may survive. 37. Once the state Government has taken all precautions to ensure that the impact on the environment is transient and minimal, a court will not substitute its own assessment in place of the opinion of persons who are specialists and who may have decided the question with objectivity and ability. [(See Sachidanand Pandey v. state of W.B. (AIR at pp. 1114-15: SCC pp.305-6)]. Courts cannot be asked to assess the environmental impact of the pipelines on the wildlife but can at least oversee that those with established credentials and who have the requisite expertise have been consulted and that their recommendations have been abided by, by the state Government. If it is found that the recommendations have not been so abided by, the mere fact that large economic costs are involved should not deter the courts from barring and if necessary, undoing the development.” 22. In that case the Supreme Court thereafter was satisfied from the evidence on record that the Essar the appellant had taken precautions after considering experts to see that the pipeline route causes minimal and reversible damage to the wildlife. The permissions given by the Central Government under the FCA and EPA were on the basis of the laying of the pipeline as proposed. There was no challenge to these permissions. In this case too, the reports of NEERI and NIO appear to indicate that the best option has been chosen and there are no challenge to the permissions granted by the statutory authorities. 23. The National Institute of Oceanography also made an overall assessment that the environmental impact in using the corridor 3 would be fair than the other two. The expert opinions of these bodies cannot be ignored. 23. The National Institute of Oceanography also made an overall assessment that the environmental impact in using the corridor 3 would be fair than the other two. The expert opinions of these bodies cannot be ignored. The orders of all the authorities have been produced and there is no challenge to the Reports of the two expert bodies, and also the observations in the A.P. High Court judgment, are also before us. There is no material placed before us to make a different assessment on the impact thus far. But we are not done with the matter yet. Some special features in this case. I) We find in the memorandum of understanding a commitment by the Govt that, towards this end, the Government agrees to provide all necessary assistance to Reliance in obtaining land conversions, acquiring rights of user for laying pipelines, facilitating obtaining of governmental permission and approvals and in acquisition of land for the speedy implementation and completion of Reliance’s natural gas project. If the Government has agreed under this memorandum of understanding to facilities the obtaining of permissions and approvals of land conversions, the question arises in our mind whether the authorities will have the freedom to decide objectively, the applications for permission and approval. When the State Government is committed to honour the fundamental duty under Article 51 A (G) and Article 48-A and in view of the international Covenants, we do not see how the State can include the term in the Memorandum of Understanding that it will agree to provide assistance before even ascertaining the environmental and ecological impact of the project. This clause 1.4 can only be understood to mean that any permission or approval or assistance is subject to the environmental laws and safeguards which will have priority over any claim or right that the 6th respondent may assert. Otherwise, it will not be possible for any of the authorities to examine independently the safety and the environmental impact of the claim which the 6th respondent has made or will make in the future. In the background of this clause it is really noteworthy that the original authority under the Town and Country Planning Act had rejected the 6th respondent’s application. II) We requested the learned Government Pleader to produce the files and the files were produced. We find in the scrutiny of building plan against col. In the background of this clause it is really noteworthy that the original authority under the Town and Country Planning Act had rejected the 6th respondent’s application. II) We requested the learned Government Pleader to produce the files and the files were produced. We find in the scrutiny of building plan against col. 8, a proposal of the application is for seeking approval for the construction of Jetty and Control Cabinet Building at T.S.No.F/11/22/2, F/11/22/3 and F/8/11 in Darialathippa, Adavipolan, Yanam and col.9 the Site was inspected and observed that the work was already been completed in the Site. This fills us with dismay. It is of course true that the subsequent reports of NEERI and NIO are in favour of the project in the sense they say that there is minimal environmental impact by adopting the corridor no.3. The 6th respondent affirmed that it has done all that it should, to ensure safety. But it is clear the 6th respondent has commenced and presented the project as a fait accompli before obtaining approval. The fact that subsequently approval is obtained is a matter is not enough. The attitude of the 6th respondent disturbs us. We expect the 6th respondent to have greater social responsibility. After all when environmental disaster strikes, it would strike the mighty and the weak equally. We asked the learned Senior Counsel why the 6th respondent went ahead with the project before obtaining approval, but he had no answer. In fact the 6th respondent filed an additional affidavit. It is clear from the additional affidavit that all that the Puducherry Town and Country Planning Board did was to regularise the building already constructed. While we again accept the claim made by the 6th respondent, that the project is one of great importance for production of hydrocarbons which is a vital natural source, we do not understand why the 6th respondent should have commenced production and then obtain the approval. 25. After 1989 Exxon Valdes Oil Spill, the CERES principles were drafted with the object of protecting the earth, using energy and resources wisely and sustainably to minimize waste, reducing risk and compensating for damages. 25. After 1989 Exxon Valdes Oil Spill, the CERES principles were drafted with the object of protecting the earth, using energy and resources wisely and sustainably to minimize waste, reducing risk and compensating for damages. The principles required Corporations to have a direct responsibility with the environment, that they should be responsible stewards of the environment, seeking profits only in a manner that leaves the Earth healthy and safe without compromising the future generations’ ability to sustain their needs. The affirmations are not saying anything new, but we are mentioning this only to show that when such accidents occur we realise that they a sweeping impact uncontained by time or space. This responsibility to be good stewards of the environment is cast on all of us. 26. We are confident that hereafter Government Memorandum of Understandings will not be drafted in terms which may compromise the independence of authorities who have to grant permissions or approval for activities which will have ecological/ environmental, impact, especially in a project of this magnitude. The recent volcanic eruption warned us clearly that environmental disasters cannot be contained geographically. To quote John Donne, “No Man is an Island, entire of itself, every man is a piece of the Continent,……any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee” 27. Now we are informed that the application for conversion of land user is pending consideration. It has not yet been disposed of. We observed at the beginning that the writ petition could have been dismissed merely on the ground that the Madras River Conservancy Act has not been extended to Union Territory of Puducherry and the Basic premise of the petitioner could not have been accepted. However it is only because this writ petition is filed, certain interesting features came to light further we could also give directions to the 6th respondent that they should undertake social responsibility schemes in the Yanam region. They have mentioned some in their affidavit. 28. We have extracted the paragraphs in the affidavit earlier only to remind the 6th respondent of their social responsibility, that they will not just rest with filing an affidavit, but they will fulfill the promises made in the affidavit. 29. They have mentioned some in their affidavit. 28. We have extracted the paragraphs in the affidavit earlier only to remind the 6th respondent of their social responsibility, that they will not just rest with filing an affidavit, but they will fulfill the promises made in the affidavit. 29. We direct that the respondents before whom the application for conversion of land user is pending will decide the same in accordance with law and the 6th respondent will also await the decision on his application before they commence any of their activity. That would be the socially responsible thing to do they must be leaders in social and ethical governance and it will be easier for others to follow. No one is proof against the impact of ecological degradation or environmental calamities. Once disaster strikes then the world becomes a small village. It strikes all equally. Therefore, notwithstanding the importance of the economic development and industrialization, we cannot ignore our environment’s future. We again extract the principle from the Indian Council for Environment case for deciding the application of sixth respondent that is pending and for assessing any possible damages that may be caused by the project in future. a) The State Government must ask for and obtain an environmental-impact report from expert bodies. b) The applicant must come forward with an environmental-management plan which must be cleared by the experts. c) To prevent possible future damage, the State Government must also be satisfied that the damage which may be caused is not irreversible and the applicant should be prepared and must sufficiently secure the cost of reversing any damage which might be caused. d) The State Government should also have in place the necessary infrastructure to maintain periodical surveys and enforce the stipulations subject to which the permit may be granted. e) The State Government should before, granting the approval, also call upon the applicant to publish its proposal so that the public, particularly those who are likely to be affected are made aware of the proposed action. f) This will ensure transparency in the process and at least safeguard against a decision of the State Government based solely upon narrow political objectives. g) Besides, the citizens who have been made responsible to protect the environment have a right to know. f) This will ensure transparency in the process and at least safeguard against a decision of the State Government based solely upon narrow political objectives. g) Besides, the citizens who have been made responsible to protect the environment have a right to know. h) There is also a strong link between Article 21 and the right to know particularly where “secret government decisions may affect health, life and livelihood”. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.