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. 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 (HAZAN) ought to have been first completed. She asserted that none of these steps had been taken or completed by any of the official Authorities, including the KSPPL; and consequently, that laying of the Pipeline and the attempt to construct an “SV Station” within the “Colony” is grossly illegal and unlawful. 8. She asserted that none of these steps had been taken or completed by any of the official Authorities, including the KSPPL; and consequently, that laying of the Pipeline and the attempt to construct an “SV Station” within the “Colony” is grossly illegal and unlawful. 8. Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan then attacked the impugned notification saying that it has been issued in blatant violation of the provisions of the “P & MP Act”, particularly because, even though her clients had been given notices prior to its issue, their objections were not considered, nor were they given an opportunity of being heard, either individually or through a public hearing. She thus prayed that Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021 be set aside and the KSPPL be directed not to construct an “SV Station” in the land owned by Sri. Mathew K.J. 9. Dr. K.P. Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, edificed his client’s submissions on certain materials produced by them, including Ext.P14, to predicate that an “SV Station”, if established and constructed in a thickly populated area, would be a cause of perennial concern and safety violations for its neighbours. He then argued, citing extensively from Ext.P1 – which is a copy of the “Regulations” – showing me Clause 1.5.1 thereof, that originating, intermediate and terminal facilities of cross country pipelines, such as Pump Station or Originating Station and Sectionalizing Valve Stations etc., shall be located only after considering various aspects, especially “habitation” and environmental safety. He argued that respondents are fully aware that the “Colony” is a thickly habitated one, with every plot thereof intended for residential use, many of which have already been put to such purpose; and therefore, that installation of an “SV Station” in the property of Sri. Mathew M.J. is not merely illegal, but is an outrage to the constitutional guarantees of safe life of his clients. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P2 notification, to the extent to which it relates to the construction of an “SV Station” in the area in question, be quashed. 10. As an alternative submission, Dr. Mathew M.J. is not merely illegal, but is an outrage to the constitutional guarantees of safe life of his clients. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P2 notification, to the extent to which it relates to the construction of an “SV Station” in the area in question, be quashed. 10. As an alternative submission, Dr. K.P. Pradeep contented that, even going by the Environmental Clearance given by the competent Authority – which has been produced on record by KSPPL as Ext.R4(e) in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021 - only three “SV Stations” were permitted; while it is admitted by them in their additional statement dated 28/10/2021 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, that five such Stations are being actually installed, including the one which is assailed in these proceedings. He thus argued that the entire action taken forward by the respondents is in grave violation of the provisions of the various Statutes, as also the Environmental Clearance obtained by them from the competent Authority. He concluded his submissions praying that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition be granted, especially because his clients have been warned by the Officers of KSPPL that once the “SV Station” is set up, even a spark from their residences, including from the kitchens, would be sufficient to create cataclysmic consequences. 11. Sri. Saji Varghese – learned counsel appearing for the KSPPL, controverted each of the afore submissions meticulously by taking me through the various statements filed on behalf of his client. 12. The records reveal that three statements have been filed by the KSPPL in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, namely those which are dated 28/10/2021, 16/12/2021, 12/01/2021 and 01/02/2022; while in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, two have been filed, namely, those dated 04/10/2021 and 28/10/2021. 13. Sri. Saji Varghese submitted that, in the initial statements filed before this Court, the contentions of the petitioners against the safety aspects of the Pipeline and the “SV Station” have been answered in detail, since that was the thrust of their arguments at that time. He showed me from the statement dated 28.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, that an “SV Station” is, in fact, intended to avoid and mitigate any accident that may happen in the underground Pipeline. He showed me from the statement dated 28.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, that an “SV Station” is, in fact, intended to avoid and mitigate any accident that may happen in the underground Pipeline. He then submitted that the petitioners do not obtain any cause of action to maintain these writ petitions, because none of their properties have been touched, either by the Pipeline – which he asserted has already been completed – or in establishment of the “SV Station” and that great amount of care has been taken by his client, as also the official respondents, to ensure that the alignment of the route of the Pipeline was fixed in such a manner that only eleven out of the 56 survey numbers are comprised of “dry lands”, while the remaining 45 are “wet lands”. He, however, added that an “SV Station” can be constructed only on a “dry land” and not either on a “paddy land” or on a “wet land”, because it requires a firm basement and structure, intended to avoid and avert any possible accident in the Pipeline, to be ensured through a Safety Regulatory and Auditory System on a constant basis. He argued that, therefore, as long as the Pipeline does not run through any of the properties of the petitioners – which he says is admitted – none of them were required to be given any notice under the “P & MP Act”, nor their objections required to be considered; and further explained that they had initially been given notices under Section 4 thereof, because it was assumed that their properties were also involved. He added that since none of the lands of the petitioners have now been put to use for the purpose of laying of the Pipeline, their objections to the same are merely speculative and that, in any event of the matter, since Sri. M.J. Mathew has voluntarily agreed that an “SV Station” can be established in his property – through which the Pipeline runs – it cannot be assailed by any of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 14. Before I move forward, I must record that, during the hearing of these matters, a suggestion was made whether the “SV Station” can be established in an alternate site. This was based on the submissions of Dr. 14. Before I move forward, I must record that, during the hearing of these matters, a suggestion was made whether the “SV Station” can be established in an alternate site. This was based on the submissions of Dr. K.P. Pradeep and Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan that another person was willing to handover her property for this purpose and consequently, I issued an order on 27/02/2022, directing the officials of the KSPPL to visit the site, as also the alternate one, in the presence of the petitioners and to file a report before this Court. Pursuant thereto, a statement dated 01/02/2022 has been placed on record by Sri. Saji Varghese in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, wherein, the following have been averred : The alternate plot suggested by the petitioner to build the SV3 Station was visited by a Committee comprising of the Project Manager, Operations Manager, and the Project Engineer of the 4th respondent Company along with the Senior Engineer of M/s Engineers India Limited, the Consultant of the project, on 27 January, 2022. 2. The Committee has inter alia noticed the following points. The alternate plot suggested by the petitioners is low lying wet land surrounded by other wet lands Wet land cannot be used for construction of SV Station. Though Right of User in an extent of 1.92 cents of land on the North-East corner of the alternate land is acquired as part of the 10 meter wide pipeline route, the pipeline is not passing through the alternate plot but through the neighbouring property. Since the Sectionalizing Valve is to be fixed on the alignment of pipeline and the SV station requires a minimum extent of 30 cents of land, part of the near by land through which the pipeline is passing through is also to be purchased if SV Station is to be established there along with portion of the alternate land. But both of the above lands are wetlands which cannot be used for construction of SV Station. Further the approach to the alternate plot is only through a private, bumpy mud road having a width of only 2.5 to 3 meters, which cannot be used for movement of maintenance truck, emergency vehicles like Fire truck, water truck or nitrogen cascade to the SV Station, which is a mandatory requirement. The plot is low lying and prone for heavy water logs / floods. The plot is low lying and prone for heavy water logs / floods. This is also not in compliance with Oil Industry Safety Directorate Standards, which stipulates the factors to be considered for choosing the plot for SVs such as water table, natural drainage, flood levels, approachability etc. Even in respect of land where none of the above hurdles are there, the land owners shall be ready to sell the land at a rate acceptable to the respondent Company which shall be less than the rate fixed by the approved Valuers. It is submitted that for all these reasons the proposal of the petitioners is not viable and is not acceptable to the 4th respondent Company, Further even in case of dry land, the construction and completion of the SV Station requires about 2 months and since the project is to be commissioned immediately, the Respondent Company cannot afford to wait or make any further delay in proceeding with the matter, which will be against public interest as well. 3. It is further submitted that the land which is going to be purchased for the SV Station is a dry land having an extent of 34 cents. It has road frontage of 5.5 meter wide Municipal Tar Road (K P Kurian Road) of on the entire west boundary of the said land and it is a plain land. Heavy vehicles can have easy access to the said land through the said road. There is another Municipal road passing through the southern boundary of the said plot. There is no threat of high water table, floods or landslides for the said plot and it falls in the location limits of 12km from previous SV and is safe & suitable for buildings and underground Motor operated Ball valve. Topography survey of the said plot was conducted on 13.07.2021. Based on the Topo survey a key plan has been made and is verified with the HAZOP study report conducted on 02.09.2019, for compliance. As there is no alteration in the design basis and the process parameter/interlocks including the line fill quantity the prevailing HAZOP holds good for SV3. Therefore, risk analysis (RA) matrix considered in the above-mentioned HAZOP shall remain the same for this SV. Plot plan has been verified for necessary safe inter distances within the plot as per PNGRB guidelines. As there is no alteration in the design basis and the process parameter/interlocks including the line fill quantity the prevailing HAZOP holds good for SV3. Therefore, risk analysis (RA) matrix considered in the above-mentioned HAZOP shall remain the same for this SV. Plot plan has been verified for necessary safe inter distances within the plot as per PNGRB guidelines. The said land was valued by two approved Valuers and owner of the land has agreed to sell the land for a price less than the price fixed by the Valuers. It is submitted that this is the only available plot, suitable for construction of the third SV Station as per the PNGRB and OISD guidelines. 4. It is also brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that as per the permission granted by the PNGRB and also as per the agreement with the financiers of the respondent company, the date of commissioning of the project is 1.4.2022 and delay will cause huge loss to the respondent Company and its promotors. This project is the main feeder for the entire Kochi-Salem Scheme and also for Indian Oil Corporation Import terminal at Puthuvyupin, for which huge investments can be made. On commissioning the project, use of tanker Lorries for transportation, traffic congestion due to the same and pollution issue will come to an end. Therefore commissioning of this project on time is in public interest due to the reason which the progress of the project and its timely completion is being regularly monitored by the Prime Minister's office and the Chief Ministers Office. Major portion of the work of the project is over and any further delay will be detrimental to the Company and against public interest. 15. It is thus clear that the official respondents, as also the KSPPL, take the express stand that there is no other feasible route for the Pipeline from the present – through which it has already been laid – and that the “SV Station” can only be established in the property of Sri. M.J. Mathew, since the alternate plot suggested as either inadequate or inappropriate for such purpose. 16. Of course, Dr. M.J. Mathew, since the alternate plot suggested as either inadequate or inappropriate for such purpose. 16. Of course, Dr. K.P. Pradeep – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, has filed a detailed reply to the afore extracted averments in the statement of the KSPPL, producing documents to show that the access road to the suggested alternate plot is much more than what is stated; and further that same is not a “wetland”, but has been included as a “paddy land” in the Data Bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the “Paddy Land Act”, for short); and now recommended by the competent Authority – as is evident from Exts.P19 and P20 – to be classified as a “dry land”, thus to be removed from the said Data Bank. He argued that, therefore, it is now only for the Revenue Divisional Officer/District Collector to issue an appropriate order under the “Paddy Land Act”, to make the alternate land suitable for the purpose of construction of the “SV Station”. He asserted that, if this is done, most of the apprehensions of his clients and that of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, would be allayed, because they genuinely fear that the “SV Station” at the present location would create a constant and irreparable cause of safety concern to them in future. 17. Sri. Gopikrishnan Nambiar – learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, adopted all the submissions of Sri. Saji Varghese, adding that his client has already invested substantial amounts in the Pipeline and the Gas Import Terminal; and therefore, prayed that this Court may not issue any interdiction to its commissioning, merely on the basis of an apocryphal apprehension voiced by the petitioners. He thus prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 18. Smt. Rekha Agarwal – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Thrikkakara Municipality, submitted that though her client has no specific role to play in the identification of the route for the Pipeline or the plot for the establishment of the “SV Station”, attempts were made to find an amicable solution, but that it had not fructified. She submitted that her client will abide by any orders or directions to be issued by this Court. 19. She submitted that her client will abide by any orders or directions to be issued by this Court. 19. The essential facts and factual factors being so recorded, it is now incumbent upon this Court to verify the merits of the various rival contentions. 20. As I have already seen above, in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, Ext.P4 has been challenged. However, as rightly stated by Sri. Saji Varghese, it is not a notification under Section 3(1) of the “P & MP Act”, but only a communication issued by the KSPPL to the competent Authority to issue such a notification. Of course, this would be of no consequence, because the said notification has been produced as Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, albeit the challenge therein is not to it per se, but to the establishment of an “SV Station” under its ambit. 21. Be that as it may, the real question is whether the notification under Section 3(1) of the “P & MP Act”, namely Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, can be seen to have violated any of the provisions of the said Act. For this purpose, one will certainly have to glance through Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of it first. Section 3 provides for issuance of a notification, which then enables the persons authorized to enter into the properties involved and to conduct survey and take such other steps. Section 5, thereafter, stipulates that any person interested in any land may object to the laying of Pipeline under it and that such objections will have to be heard by the competent Authority, after affording them an opportunity of being heard. It is after this process is over, that a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, with respect to the right of user of the land, is published. 22. Limpidly, therefore, 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. 23. In the case at hand, it is expressly conceded that the lands of none of the petitioners have been involved in the notification, nor the Pipeline run through any of them. 23. In the case at hand, it is expressly conceded that the lands of none of the petitioners have been involved in the notification, nor the Pipeline run through any of them. Their only apprehension is that since the Pipeline runs through the properties adjacent to theirs, it would be dangerous to their lives; and consequently, that they obtain a right to be heard in such perspective. 24. I am afraid that the afore argument of Dr. K.P. Pradeep and Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan cannot appeal to me, because when the petitioners themselves admit that they have no right over any of the lands through which the Pipeline is running, or over which the “SV Station” is proposed to be established, I cannot fathom their argument that they ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard under Section 5 of the “P & MP Act”. 25. As I have already said above, Section 5 is luculent in its purlieus that it is only a person who is interested in the land who ought to be given an opportunity of filing objections and of being heard by the competent Authority. Since none of the properties of the petitioners are admittedly used for the purpose of laying the Pipeline, denial of such an opportunity can never be seen to be a statutory violation; and for that reason, Ext.P2 notification in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, cannot be challenged by them on such ground. 26. That being so said, the alternative argument of the petitioners is that the Pipeline, as well as the proposed “SV Station”, have been laid and is attempted to be established in violation of the “Regulations”. For this purpose, they rely on Clause 1.5.1 of the same and say that an “SV Station” or a Pipeline can be located only taking note of the following aspects : (i). Functional and pipeline hydraulic requirements. (ii). Environmental consideration based on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Risk analysis (RA) study for the pipeline and stations. (iii). The Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study and Hazard Analysis (HAZAN). (iv). The availability of space for future augmentation of facilities. (v). Approachability, water table and flood level and natural drainage. (vi). Availability of electric power and water. (vii). Habitation. 27. In fact, Dr. (iii). The Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study and Hazard Analysis (HAZAN). (iv). The availability of space for future augmentation of facilities. (v). Approachability, water table and flood level and natural drainage. (vi). Availability of electric power and water. (vii). Habitation. 27. In fact, Dr. K.P. Pradeep – learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021, argued vehemently on the question of “habitation” and submitted that when the respondents were aware that the Pipeline was running through a “residential colony”, they could not have issued a notification for acquisition of the right of user there–through, because every plot adjacent to the ones through which the same is running, houses residential buildings inhabited by families, including children and elders. He contended that, if a Notification is permitted to be issued in violation of this, then there would be no purpose for the “Regulations” containing a specific caveat that an “SV Station” can be established only taking note of the major aspect of “habitation”. 28. The afore argument was supported by Smt. Tessy Rose K. Cheriyan, who supplemented it saying that, since the area in question is a “Colony”, in which residential houses have been constructed and intended to be constructed, laying of the Pipeline through it would cause serious danger in future and will lead to unimaginable loss of life, should there be an accident. She then added that there are several extents of lands near the “Colony”, which are not habitated and through which the Pipeline could have been run, but that respondents appear to have chosen not to do so for oblique and confutative reasons. 29. In this context, I must certainly go through the various materials produced on record, including the statements filed by the Company and the official respondents. 30. The Company has placed on file Ext.R4 series of documents, which contains the Environmental Clearance(EC), as also the HAZOP and HAZAN study reports, as Exts.R4(e) and R4(d) respectively. As per Ext.R4(e), the project in question has been granted Environmental Clearance; while the HAZOP and HAZAN study, namely Ext.R4(d), has found that installation of the Pipeline or the various structures ancillary thereto, would cause no real danger to either the locality or to the residents thereof. As per Ext.R4(e), the project in question has been granted Environmental Clearance; while the HAZOP and HAZAN study, namely Ext.R4(d), has found that installation of the Pipeline or the various structures ancillary thereto, would cause no real danger to either the locality or to the residents thereof. These inputs are not challenged by the petitioners, though they try to point out that after the “EC” had been granted, alignment of the pipeline had been altered, which is evident from Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021. However, this is answered by Sri. Saji Varghese – learned counsel for KSPPL, pointing out that, through Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.19715/2021, a small diversion of the route alone had been proposed, without any major change, on account of certain technical reasons. He submitted that this would not, in any manner, affect the “EC” already granted, since the route cleared by it has not been substantially altered. 31. Even if this Court is to find some force in the submissions of the petitioners as afore, the real question would be whether the impugned Section 3(1) Notification causes any statutory or real prejudice, as has been alleged by them. It is important to note at this point, as I have already seen above, that the Pipeline does not go through any of the properties owned by the petitioners, but only through adjacent areas. Since none of the owners of the plots, through which the Pipeline presently runs, have approached this Court assailing it – which would indicate their readiness for such purpose – I am unable to countenance the argument of the petitioners that they would be put to prejudice because it may would cause danger to them in future. 32. As rightly stated by Sri. Saji Varghese, the Pipeline has been installed through city areas of Kochi and is common knowledge that its density of population is substantially high. Obviously, therefore, 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; and, therefore, the crucial question is whether the Pipeline causes any substantial, legal or statutory detriment to the petitioners. Obviously, therefore, 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; and, therefore, the crucial question is whether the Pipeline causes any substantial, legal or statutory detriment to the petitioners. The answer to this is surely to the negative, because as I have seen above, none of their properties have been touched and consequently, not being statutorily required to be issued with notices under the provisions of the “P & MP Act”. 33. Coming to the fears and apprehensions impelled by the petitioners in these cases, they seem to be relying upon certain information – particularly Ext.P14 produced in W.P.(C) No.21861/2021 – to harbor an impression that an “SV Station” is an extremely dangerous one. However, even going by Ext.P14 afore mentioned, what is found in the study therein is that an “SV Station”, in fact, has a role of a “control valve” in the event of a Pipeline failure and that it is part of the response, rather than the prevention. Pertinently, Ext.P14 does not specifically record any pointed danger with respect to installation of the “SV Station”, in addition or in excess of what can be expected of a Pipeline; and that, on the contrary, it goes on to explain that it is intended to minimize the aftermath of an accident in the Pipeline, should it happen in future. Apart from this particular document, which has emanated from a study conducted in a foreign country, nothing has been placed to show that an “SV Station” would create any danger to either the petitioners or to the residents of the locality and apoductically, therefore, their apprehensions – though perhaps justified since they have no technical information about the project – appear to be without scientific or factual hypostasis. 34. In fact, going by the “Regulations”, the establishment of an “SV Station” is an imperative requirement, without which the Pipeline would be rendered extremely dangerous. It is uncontested that “SV Stations” are intended to minimize the hazard of fire to the “Pump Station” and to accidents resulting from the “Pipeline” per se, and that they have to be installed within a set distance, which is stated to be every 12 Kilometres of the Pipeline. 35. It is uncontested that “SV Stations” are intended to minimize the hazard of fire to the “Pump Station” and to accidents resulting from the “Pipeline” per se, and that they have to be installed within a set distance, which is stated to be every 12 Kilometres of the Pipeline. 35. Thus, an “SV Station” is a safety measure, rather than being a cause of concern, because in the absence of the same, the Pipeline will become impossible of being commissioned. 36. At this time, I must also record the additional submissions of Sri. Saji Varghese that the Pipeline or the “SV Station” cannot be automatically commissioned, solely because it is constructed, without implicitly following and completing the various “Post–Installation” procedures as are mandated by the competent Authorities, including the Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) under the “Regulations”. He assured this Court that merely because the installation of the Pipeline and the construction of the “SV Station” are completed, it will not be operationalized until the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, or its accredited Agency, ensures full compliance of the “Regulations”; for which purpose, an Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan will be first put in place, after obtaining all necessary permits/consents from the various Statutory Bodies such as the District Administration, Disaster Management Authority, Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation, Fire and Rescue Department, Factories and Boilers Department, Pollution Control Board and such other. He pointed out that it is only after the “QRA” is implicitly completed, will the Project be commissioned and therefore, that the petitioners need not harbor any apprehension or fear, either with respect to the Pipeline or the “SV Station”. 37. On a lighter note, Sri. Saji Varghese then submitted that the allegation of the petitioners, that they will not be able to use their kitchens or even to light a stove therein, is without any basis, and that all routine and normal work, as is necessary in a residential household, can be done by the petitioners, notwithstanding the establishment of the “SV Station”, since it would pose no such danger as suspected. 38. Sri. Saji Varghese concluded pointing out that the “Risk Analysis Study” and the “Environmental Impact Assessment Study” were done by a Public Sector Undertaking, by name MICON Limited, which is an approved Agency; and referred to Ext.R4(a) in substantiation. 38. Sri. Saji Varghese concluded pointing out that the “Risk Analysis Study” and the “Environmental Impact Assessment Study” were done by a Public Sector Undertaking, by name MICON Limited, which is an approved Agency; and referred to Ext.R4(a) in substantiation. He then, supplemented this, asserting that the imperative instructions of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board have been scrupulously complied with, by using Pipes of the necessary thickness, and that it has been buried at an additional depth of 300 MM in those areas where residential houses are situated within 15 metres. He added that all these steps and measures have been adopted to assuage the fear of the petitioners; and consequently, prayed that these writ petitions be dismissed. 39. In the context of the afore factual and legal discussion, it is evident that the petitioners – as may be the case of any other person who is faced with the prospect of being forced to live next to a Pipeline or to an “SV Station” – have approached this Court with a justified apprehension, which, however, now deserves to be discounted on account of the various measures and steps, that have already been taken by the respondents and noticed by this Court in the afore paragraphs of this judgment, to ensure the safety of the installation in question. I am, consequently, certain that the petitioners – fully or at least to substantial extent – now stands reassured and mollified by the various safety measures and requirements which have been and will be put in place by KSPPL and by the official respondents; and in being expressly assured that establishment of the “SV Station” would not impede them using their kitchens, as has been feared by them. 40. In any event of the matter, since commissioning and operationalisation of the Pipeline and the “SV Station” can be done only after the imperative Qualitative Risk Analysis protocols are satisfied and after the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board or its accredited Agency certifies it, the safety and Regulatory Compliances of the Project are fully guaranteed. 41. 40. In any event of the matter, since commissioning and operationalisation of the Pipeline and the “SV Station” can be done only after the imperative Qualitative Risk Analysis protocols are satisfied and after the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board or its accredited Agency certifies it, the safety and Regulatory Compliances of the Project are fully guaranteed. 41. As far as the alternative land proposed by the petitioners for the purpose of installation of the “SV Station” is concerned, I cannot find fault with the official respondents or the KSPPL in taking the stand that this is not possible because, as at present, the same is admittedly a “paddy land” and there are factual disputes as to the width of its access and extent. Needless to say, these are not aspects which this Court can conclusively decide, one way or the other, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly because, going by the submissions of KSPPL, if the said alternate land is to be accepted, then additional acquisition will have to be undertaken, for which, large amounts of money may have to be expended. I cannot pin error on them when they say that the owner of the proposed alternate land is not willing to abide by the terms that have been agreed by Sri. M.J. Mathew, and is making a much higher demand, since, surely, the angle of financial scope will also need to be factored in, while a Project of this nature is finally operationalized or commissioned. In the afore circumstances, I close these writ petitions without acceding to any of the prayers sought for by the petitioners; however, directing that the 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; and after obtaining necessary permits and consents from all statutory entities like the District Administration, Disaster Management Authority, PESO, Fire and Rescue Department, Factories and Boilers Department, Pollution Control Board etc. The official respondents shall ensure that these directions are complied with in its letter and spirit.