Judgment :- ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. 1. In all these matters, the petitioners prayer is to review the common order dated 11.5.2011 passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions (in W.P.Nos.11747/2002; 37081/2002; 41163/2002 and 7444/2009). Some of the petitioners have also filed Miscellaneous Petitions, praying extension of time for six months, for compliance of the order passed by this Court. 2. A brief background of the filing of these review petitions is that this Court has taken up a Writ Petition in W.P.No.11747 of 2002, based on a letter addressed by Avoor Muthiah Maistry Street Residents Welfare Association, 64/7, Avoor Muthiah Street, Chennai, signed by its President Mr.s.K.Swamy, to the then Honourable Chief Justice of this Court, thereby explaining the hazardous pollution they are facing because of the iron ore unloaded in the harbour. 3. Thereupon, since there was no response from the Chennai Port, despite three notices issues by the Pollution Control Board, as per the order of the then Honourable Chief Justice, the said three notices were treated as taken up writ petition in W.P.No.37081 of 2002. 4. During pendency of the above said two taken up writ petitions, the Royapuram Residents Welfare Association, has filed a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.41163 of 2002, praying to frame an appropriate scheme to eliminate the chronic air pollution caused due to the bulk handling of iron ore and coal at the Chennai Port and compensate residents affected by pollution. The Madras High Court Practising Advocates Association has also filed W.P.No.7444 of 2009 as a Public Interest Litigation, praying to restrain the Madras Port Trust and others from dumping the chemicals in the Madras Port Trust area and to shift the chemicals to Ennore Port immediately. 5. Taking up all the matters together and hearing all the parties concerned at length, this Court, by the order dated 11.5.2011, has arrived at the following conclusions: "(i) The Chennai Port Trust has not taken any appreciable step towards arresting the pollution. 5. Taking up all the matters together and hearing all the parties concerned at length, this Court, by the order dated 11.5.2011, has arrived at the following conclusions: "(i) The Chennai Port Trust has not taken any appreciable step towards arresting the pollution. The so-called measures said to have been taken by the Chennai Port are inadequate to address the issue of pollution in the area and the various orders passed by this Court and the directions issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to the Chennai Port to arrest the pollution have not been cared by the Chennai Port Trust, exhibiting its callous attitude and scant regard to the public health and security. (ii) The argument advanced on the part of the Chennai Port that in case of shifting its coal and iron ore operations to Ennore Port, it will lead to unrest among the employees and pensioners cannot be accepted, in view of the well established principle of law that the interest of major sections of the society shall always prevail over that of the small sections of the people. Furthermore, this Court cannot leave in lurch the employees and the pensioners of the Chennai Port also, since this Court is aware that the livelihood of the employees and pensioners of the Chennai Port cannot be ignored and sufficient safeguards have to be made while protecting the interest of the society at large. (iii) The other argument advanced on the part of the Chennai Port that the traders would prefer other private ports, if the coal and iron ore operations are shifted to Ennore Port, also cannot be accepted taking into consideration the distance criterion, as explained above. (iii) The other argument advanced on the part of the Chennai Port that the traders would prefer other private ports, if the coal and iron ore operations are shifted to Ennore Port, also cannot be accepted taking into consideration the distance criterion, as explained above. (iv) The point sought to be impressed upon by the Chennai Port that there will be loss to the exchequer if the prayer of the petitioners to shift the coal and iron ore operations to the Ennore Port cannot have any legs to stand before us, since it is the settled position of law that protection of environment would have precedence over the economic interest and precautionary principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm and the harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion and it is not always necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment and in the case on hand, there is voluminous material on record, as has been discussed by us supra, standing as a direct evidence to the harm being caused to the environment by the Chennai Port. (v) The Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, with its extended meaning of including the right to clean environment is so sacrosanct and always on the high pedestal as the basic right of the citizens of this great country, the object being to prevent deprivation of life and assuring the citizens to live with all human dignity. Foremost among all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution is the right to life, from which flow other rights and freedoms. The right to life is not confined to mere physical or animal existence but includes the right to every limb or faculty through which life is enjoyed. It signifies the right to live with basic human dignity. No industry has any right to destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health hazard. (vi) The material on record has established the fact that Ennore Port has been planned well and built in a systematic way and the facilities available in Ennore Port are plenty viz., construction of berths in perpendicular direction, the vast area of 2080 hectares, railway track siding, nearness to Madras, not being a residential locality, etc. (vi) The material on record has established the fact that Ennore Port has been planned well and built in a systematic way and the facilities available in Ennore Port are plenty viz., construction of berths in perpendicular direction, the vast area of 2080 hectares, railway track siding, nearness to Madras, not being a residential locality, etc. (vii) Since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that TNEB has shifted its discharge operations to Ennore Port from July, 2001 onwards, TNEB is not a necessary party to these proceedings. (viii) Though in W.P.No.41163 of 2002 it has been prayed that the residents affected by pollution on account of the operation of the Chennai Port be granted compensation, no arguments in this regard have been advanced before us and all that has been argued before us is only with regard to the shifting of the dusty cargoes like iron ore, coal from Chennai Port to Ennore Port, because of the enormous pollution being caused by the Chennai Port because of such operations. Therefore, we have not gone into the aspect of compensation and this part of the relief claimed on the part of the petitioner in W.P.No.41163 of 2002 stands dismissed. (ix) When the Government of India itself has considered to allot dusty cargoes like Coal and iron ore to Ennore Port and clean cargoes viz. Container, car etc. to Chennai Port, taking into consideration the fact of urbanization of the area surrounding Chennai Port, their subsequent stand that they wanted to encourage competition between the two Ports does not seem to be in the interest of public health and public interest, as the Chennai Port is causing so much of pollution, detrimental to the interest, safety and security of the millions of people living in its surroundings. (x) From the memo. dated 4.8.2010 filed by the Ennore Port Limited, it is clear that the construction of coal terminal is at an advanced stage, the physical progress being about 91% and with regard to the iron ore terminal it was 92% and this terminal will be operational to full capacity by September, 2011. (x) From the memo. dated 4.8.2010 filed by the Ennore Port Limited, it is clear that the construction of coal terminal is at an advanced stage, the physical progress being about 91% and with regard to the iron ore terminal it was 92% and this terminal will be operational to full capacity by September, 2011. With regard to rail connectivity to stackyards, it has been submitted by the Ennore Port that the main part of land required for rail connectivity from Salt Department was physically handed over to Ennore Port Limited on 31.5.2010 and to provide the rail connectivity to the coal and iron ore stackyards in time, a quick single line rail connectivity is planned and it will be fully operational by September, 2011." 6. Consequent to our above discussions and conclusions, we have disposed of all the writ petitions in the following manner: "(a) All the writ petitions are allowed. However, the prayer in W.P.No.41163 of 2002, with regard to the compensation aspect stands dismissed. (b) The Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi is directed to see distribution of cargoes between Ennore Port and Chennai Port, allotting clean cargoes viz. Container, car etc. to Chennai Port and the dusty cargoes like Coal, iron ore and all other dusty cargoes to Ennore Port. (c) Since the coal terminal, iron ore terminal and the single line rail connectivity at Ennore Port are assured to be operational to their full capacity by September, 2011, the Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi and the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary are directed to see that all the dusty cargoes like Coal, iron ore and all other dusty cargoes should move only to Ennore Port on and from 1.10.2011 and not to Chennai Port. The Chennai Port is also directed to render all its cooperation to the Government of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu in this direction. (d) With regard to the employees and pensioners of the Chennai Port, the Government of India, the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai Port Trust and the Ennore Port Trust are directed to see that not even a single employee is retrenched or otherwise made to lose his livelihood because of the distribution of cargoes between Ennore Port and Chennai Port, as ordered above. For this purpose, since the dusty cargoes are going to be berthed and processed at Ennore Port on and from 1.10.2011, the Ennore Port may treat the employees of the Chennai Port connected to such activities as its employees, including the pensioners. In case of any difficulty, the Government of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi and the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, shall divide the employees and pensioners, between the Chennai Port and the Ennore Port, proportionate to the income of both the Ports. (e) With regard to the traders, like the impleaded respondents 6 to 8 also, both the Chennai Port and the Ennore Port are directed to protect their rights and interest, in accordance with law." 7. As against this order of ours, S.L.P.(Civil) C.C.Nos.15107 to 15110 of 2011 were filed before the Honourable Apex Court by Bhoruka Steel and Services Limited/the petitioner in M.P.No.3/2011 in Rev.Appl.No.111/2011. However, the same were withdrawn on the ground that review petition is pending before this Court. The order of the Honourable Apex Court passed in the above SLPs., dated 23.9.2011 reads as follows: "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Chennai Port Trust has filed a review petition in regard to the order dated 11.5.2011 and the same is pending. The petitioner is a non-party. The petitioner therefore seeks leave to withdraw the SLPs with liberty to approach this Court after review petition is decided. The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty." 8. While arriving at our conclusions, in para No.17 of our order, we have also pointed out that Ennore Port Limited has filed a memo. on 4.8.2010 stating that the construction of coal terminal is at an advanced stage, the physical progress being about 91% and with regard to the iron ore terminal it was 92% and this terminal will be operational to full capacity by September, 2011. With regard to rail connectivity to stackyards, it has been submitted by them that the main part of land required for rail connectivity from Salt Department was physically handed over to Ennore Port Limited on 31.5.2010 and to provide the rail connectivity to the coal and iron ore stackyards in time, a quick single line rail connectivity is planned and it will be fully operational by September, 2011. Taking into consideration all these facts, we have directed, inter alia, that all the dusty cargoes like coal, iron ore and all other dusty cargoes should move only to Ennore Port on and from 1.10.2011 and not to Chennai Port. 9. Arguing that if such a direction is implemented, it will cause much financial loss to the Chennai Port, further dismantling the working force, the Chennai Port has come forward to file most of the above review petitions. 10. Some of the stevedores of Chennai Port Trust have also come forward to file miscellaneous petitions, praying to implead them as party respondents to the review applications. 11. Likewise, Madras Harbour Lorry Owners Association and Chennai Harbour Tipper Owners Association have also come forward to file miscellaneous petitions, praying to implead them also as party respondents. The petitioner in Review Petition No.141 of 2011 is also a third party to the writ proceedings and they have come forward to file the review, on the ground that if the direction issued by this Court is implemented, it will have serious financial impact on them. 12. The main argument advanced on the part of the proposed parties and also the petitioner in Review Petition No.141 of 2011 is that the failure, if any, on the part of the Chennai Port Trust to take preventive steps to control air pollution in and around Chennai Port, should not be put against them since the direction issued by this Court to shift all the dusty cargoes to Ennore Port will have negative financial impact on them and their employees and other people who are directly or indirectly connected to the business of the Chennai Port. 13. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Review Application No.141 of 2011 would argue that this Court has committed an error in law, in directing the shifting of the entire coal operations from Chennai Port to Ennore Port with effect from 1.10.2011 without ascertaining the quantity of coal that is required to be imported in the immediate future to meet the needs of the industries in the hinterland of Chennai Port and without ascertaining whether the Ennore Port is capable of handling such quantity of coal. The learned senior counsel would further argue that this Court ought to have considered the concept of sustainable development in its proper perspective, before issuing such drastic directions. The learned senior counsel would further argue that this Court ought to have considered the concept of sustainable development in its proper perspective, before issuing such drastic directions. In support of her arguments, the learned senior counsel would place reliance on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA [ (2002) 10 SCC 606 ], wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "It cannot be disputed that no development is possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the people as well as the necessity to maintain the environment. A balance has to be struck between the two interests...." 14. Placing reliance on this judgment of the Honourable Apex Court, the learned senior counsel would argue that this Court ought to have considered the larger welfare of the people, ignoring the difficulties of minor section of the society. 15. We are quite aware of the legal principle that the interest of the larger section of the society shall prevail over that of a minor section. In fact, in Para No.49(ii) of our judgment, which is impugned in these matters (extracted supra), we have considered this aspect and, accordingly, issued necessary directions towards protecting the interest of not only the larger sections of the society, but also the interest of the employees and pensioners of the Port. In fact, in the very same judgment relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Rev.A.No.141 of 2011, it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the people has to get primacy over comparatively lesser hardship and we have followed this legal dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in its true letter and spirit, while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this argument advanced on the part of the review petitioner has no legs to stand before us. 16. Therefore, this argument advanced on the part of the review petitioner has no legs to stand before us. 16. Coming to the points urged by the proposed parties, that the shifting of the cargoes from Chennai Port Trust to Ennore Port will be detrimental to their interest, before considering and answering their grievances, it is to be pointed out that W.P.No.11747 of 2002 has been taken up in the year 2002 and the entire proceedings, going on in this batch of writ petitions, from the year 2002, were given wide publicity in print and electronic media and all the proposed parties being very well connected - in one way or other - to the activities of Chennai Port, cannot deny knowledge of these proceedings and it is also well within their knowledge that the orders passed in the matter will have a direct bearing on them. In spite of all these facts, they did not take any step to get themselves impleaded in the writ petitions, which were pending before this Court for a period of nine years. They, thus, slept over the matter all these years for the reasons best known to them and woke up from their deep slumber only after the disposal of the cases by this Court and have now come forward to file these petitions, praying to implead them as party respondents to the review petitions, playing, mostly, sympathy as their trump card before us, which we are unable to appreciate. Had there been any genuineness in their grievance, all these proposed parties would have rushed to this Court, during the pendency of the writ petitions themselves. No reason whatsoever has also been offered on the part of these proposed parties for their laxity all these years. 17. At this juncture, we feel it apt to mention that under similar circumstances, when a third party to the proceedings has sought to review the order already passed by this Court, by getting himself impleaded as a party to the proceedings, a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.) in WOODLANDS HOTEL, REP.BY ITS PARTNER K.MURALI RAO vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [ (2008) 5 MLJ 928 ] has rejected such a prayer as being not maintainable. The said principle is equally applicable to the cases of the proposed parties herein also, who have come forward to file impleadment petitions without offering any reason for the long delay in filing such impleadment petitions. 18. Further more, in our order, considering the grievances expressed by the traders/impleaded respondents 6 to 8 in the writ petitions, we have directed both the Chennai Port and the Ennore Port to protect their rights and interest, in accordance with law and this direction will cover the grievances now expressed by the proposed parties also. For all these reasons, we do not find any reason to implead the proposed parties and to consider their cases, since already covered in the order already passed by us. Therefore, all these impleadment petitions deserve only to be dismissed. 19. Mr.P.Wilson, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Chennai Port Trust has argued that the power of review vested in the High Court extends to correct all errors, to prevent miscarriage of justice. In support of his contentions, he relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in RAJENDER SINGH vs. LT.GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND OTHERS [ (2005) 13 SCC 289 ], wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "The High Court was not justified in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may justify the claim of the appellant. It was not correct in overlooking the documents relied on by the appellant and the respondents. Review jurisdiction is available in the present case since the impugned judgment is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of relevant documents. The appellant has got a strong case in his favour and if the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not countenanced, the appellant will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. Law is well settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. The power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases. The power of judicial review extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not considered the same in its review jurisdiction. The High Courts order of dismissal of the review petition was not correct which necessitates the Supreme Courts interference." 20. In this case before the Honourable Apex Court, several important issues were left out and materials on record were ignored by High Court, unlike the case on hand. As has been extracted supra, while disposing of the batch of writ petitions, we have considered all the pros and cons of the matter and issued necessary directions. Therefore, the above judgment of the Honourable Apex Court has no application to the case on hand. 21. A careful reading of all the affidavits filed in these cases would show that the petitioners are reiterating what has already been considered by us while dealing with the writ petitions. The financial implications, the labour problems etc. urged on the part of the petitioners were dealt with, at length, by us in our impugned order. Under the guise of review, as if there is error apparent on the face of the order, all these petitioners, in fact, want us to re-hear the matter, which is impermissible under law. It has often been reiterated that the scope available for a litigant, invoking the powers of review, is not one more chance for rehearing of the matter already finally disposed of. 22. In STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND OTHERS [(2003 ) 1 AWC 567 SC], the Honourable Apex Court, considering the scope of application of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (Review) has held as follows: "A judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self--evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. An error which is not self--evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 23. This position has been reiterated in catena of judgments by the Honourable Apex Court, for example in THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS vs. KAMAL SENGUPTA AND ANOTHER [ (2008) 8 SCC 612 ], as follows: "Review cannot be an appeal in disguise and it is permissible only on the grounds specified in Or.47 R.1 CPC." 24. Nothing stated by us in our order has been established as an error apparent on the face of the order by any of the counsel appearing for the parties, so as to review the same. As has already been stated by us supra, the points which have been dealt with by us in a vivid manner in our order, have again been sought to be re-argued by the counsel appearing for the parties, as if such a re-hearing is permissible and under the guise of review, they can rake up all the points, which they can raise only before an appellate forum. In these circumstances, following the well established legal principle that review cannot be an appeal under disguise, all these review petitions are liable only to be dismissed. 25. It is also to be pointed out that during the ongoing of these review petitions, the Chennai Port Trust has also filed miscellaneous petitions, praying to grant extension of time for six months for complying with the common order dated 11.5.2011 passed by us in the W.P.No.11747 of 2002 etc. batch. 26. At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that only considering the memo. batch. 26. At the cost of repetition, it is to be mentioned that only considering the memo. dated 4.8.2010 filed by the Ennore Port Limited, stating that the construction of coal terminal is at an advanced stage, the physical progress being about 91% and with regard to the iron ore terminal it was 92% and this terminal will be operational to full capacity by September, 2011 and further considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the callous attitude exhibited on the part of the Chennai Port Trust all these years in arresting the pollution, we have ordered that all the dusty cargoes shall be berthed and processed at Ennore Port on and from 1.10.2011. Therefore, we do not find any genuineness in this prayer made by the Chennai Port Trust. Accordingly, these miscellaneous petitions are also liable to be dismissed. In the result, all the review petitions, impleadment petitions and the petitions filed for extension of time are dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs.