M. NIZAMUDDINversusM/S. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS.

                     [2010] 3 S.C.R. 315


                       M. NIZAMUDDIN                              A
                                  V.
       MIS. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 2284 of 2010)
                      MARCH 10, 2010
                                                                  B
  [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., R.M. LODHA AND DR.
                B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

    Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991:
                                                                  c
     Paragraph 3(3)(i) - Uppanar river and its banks adjacent
to the plant in Thiyagavalli village where the pipeline crosses
Uppanar river does not come under the CRZ area - On facts,
MOEF rightly granted permission to the onshore pipelines
insofar as these pass through the CRZ abutting the sea, i.e.      D
500 meters from the HTL and no clearance was required for
laying of pipelines under the Uppanar river - Coastal Zone
Management Plan of Tamil Nadu, 1996 - Environment
Protection Act, 1986 - s.2(d).

     Paragraph 2(ii) - Transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) . E
beyond port area to the PVC plant through pipelines -
Permissibility - Held: Paragraph 2(ii) permits transfer of
hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and
refineries and vice-versa, in the port areas.
                                                               F
     Coastal Zone Management Plan of Tamil Nadu, 1996:

   Demarcation plan prepared by National Institute of
Oceanography- Held: Shall not prevail over the 1996 Plan.

    Interpretation of statutes:                                   G
    Mischief rule - If exception is added to remedy the
mischief or defect, it should be so construed that remedies
the mischief and not in a manner which frustrates the very
                             315                                  H
    316    S_UPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   purpose - Purposive construction to be employed to avoid a
    lacuna and to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy
    - Coastal Ragulation Zone Notification, 1991 - Paragraph
    2(ii).

8     Chemplast Ltd. proposed to set up a project for
  manufacturing Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Cuddalore
  District, Tamil Nadu. Chemplast was also required to
  import, a raw material Vinyl Chloride Monomer (VCM) for
  manufacturing PVC. Chemplast proposed to install a
C Marine Terminal Facility (MTF) near the seashore at
  Chittrapettai village for receiving and transferring VCM
  from ships to the PVC plant through underground
  pipeline.

      Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) granted
D environmental clearance on 19.12.2005 under the
  provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 199(
  TNPCB in the light of the environmental clearance dated
  19.12.2005 granted by MOEF accorded its consent on
  14.9.2006 for the PVC plant as well as MTF and pipeline
E project of the Chemplast.

       Chemplast made an application on February 6, 2008
  to the Executive Engineer, PWD seeking permission for
  carrying seawater .and raw-materials through pipelines
  laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. The Executive
F Engineer granted permission on February 27, 2008
  subject to the conditions set out therein. In less than a
  month on March 19, 2008, the Executive Engineer,
  cancelled the permission observing that VCM may cause
  pollution and health hazard to the public.
G
       The order cancelling permission was challenged by
  Chemplast by filing writ petition before the High Court.
  The High Court allowed writ petition. Thereafter appellant
  filed PIL praying that the order passed by Executive
H Engineer on February 27, 2008 be quashed and
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND317
                    ORS.
Chemplast be directed to forbear from laying of pipelines A
for drawing VCM raw material from jetty to their plant. High
Court dismissed the writ petition. A writ petition was filed
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before
Supreme Court by another individual challenging the
permission granted by MOEF on 19.12.2005. Three more B
writ petitions came to be filed before High Court
challenging environmental clearances granted by the
MOEF to Chemplast. The appellant also sought transfer
of these petitions to this Court. IA7 was made therein for
deletion of respondent 21 and 22. The writ petition, appeal c
against the impugned judgment of High Court, transfer
petitions and IAs were heard together in these inatters.

     The questions which arose for consideration in these
matters were whether Uppanar river and its banks at the
point where pipelines pass, fall in the CRZ Ill area; and D
whether paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification restricts
transfer of VCM (hazardous substance) beyond port area
to the PVC plant through pipelines.

     Dismissing the writ petition and the appeal as well as E
IA for initiating contempt proceedings against MOEF and
disposing of the Transfer Petitions and IA7, the Court

    HELD: 1.1. Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991
was issued by the MOEF declaring the coastal stretches
as Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and regulating F
activities in such area. 1991 Notification was amended
from time to time. Paragraph 3(3)(i) of 1991 Notification
required the Coastal States and UT Administrations to
prepare Coastal Zone Management Plans for
identification and classification of the CRZ areas within G
their respective territories in accordance with the
guidelines given in Annexures I and II of the Notification.
It further mandated Coastal States and UT
Administrations to obtain approval of such plans from the
                                                            H
    318    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 3 S.C.k.

A   Central Government. As a matter of fact, the said
    provision provided a period of one year for preparation
    of such plans from the date of the Notification, but the
    Coastal States and UT Administrations remained dormant
    for many years in this regard. However, consequent upon
B   directions of this Court, the State of Tamil Nadu submitted
    its Coastal Zone Management Plan to the MOEF on
    August 23, 1996 which was approved on September 27,
    1996 (1996 Plan) containing 31 sheets corresponding to
    maps for different stretches of the coastline of the State
c   of Tamil Nadu with certain conditions/modifications/
    classifications. Sheet no.10 pertained to the coastal
    stretch of Cuddalore District. The MOEF, based on sheet
    no. 10 (1996 Plan) stated in their affidavit that the land
    portion of the banks of Uppanar river adjacent to the plant
    in Thiyagavalli village where the pipeline crosses Uppanar
0
    river does not come under the CRZ area. [Paras 26 and
    28) [333-C-D; 337-H; 338-A-E]

        1.2. The Coastal Zone Management Plan of Tamil
   Nadu, 1996 does not reflect the area on both sides of the
E Uppanar river through which the pipelines pass as CRZ
  area. By 1998 amendment, it has been provided in 1991
  Notification that High Tide Line (HTL) shall be
  demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by the
  demarcating authority or authorities so authorized by the
F central government in accordance with the general
  guidelines issued in this regard. By further amendment
  on May 21, 2002, sub-paragraph (ii) was inserted in the
  first paragraph of 1991 Notification providing therein that
  the distance from the HTL shall apply to both sides in the
G case of rivers, creeks and backwaters. The said
  amendment provided that the distance up to which
  development along rivers, creeks and backwaters is to be
  regulated shall be governed by the distance up fo which
  the tidal effects are experienced which shall be
H
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 319
                    ORS.
  determined based on salinity concentration of 5 ppt. It is A
  perfectly true that at the time of preparation and approval
  of 1996 Plan, the amendments of December 29, 1998 and
 May 21, 2002 in 1991 Notification had not seen the light
  of the day and the declaration made in first para that the
  coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers B
  and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in
  the landward side) upto 500 meters from the HTL and the
  land between the LTL and the HTL are CRZ was kept in
  view but in the absence of any modification carried out
  thereafter, 1996 Plan remained operative. The authorities c
  authorized to demarcate HTL cannot override the plan
 prepared and approved under paragraph 3(3)(i) as the
 said paragraph .leaves no manner of doubt that Coastal
 Zone Management Plan prepared by the Coastal State (or
 for that matter State Coastal Zone Management Authority) D
 and duly approved by the MOEF is the relevant plan for ·
 identification and classification of CRZ areas. The plan
 prepared by National Institute of Oceanography thus,
 cannot be said to have superseded 1996 Plan for the
 Cuddalore coastal stretch. More so, while giving approval E
·on September 27, 1996 to 1996 Plan, the MOEF appended
 a condition that government of Tamil Nadu would not
 make any change in the approved categorization of CRZ
 area without its prior approval. Thus, 1996 Plan for the
 purposes of demarcation and classification of CRZ area
 in the State of Tamil Nadu has to be treated as final and F
 conclusive and was rightly treated as such by the MOEF.
 The Uppanar river and its banks at the relevant place
 where the pipelines laid by the Chemplast pass do not
 fall under CRZ Ill area as per 1996 Plan and no
 environmental clearance is needed for such pipelines. G
 The MOEF rightly granted permission to the onshore
 pipelines insofar as these pass through the CRZ abutting
the sea, i.e. 500 meters from the HTL and no clearance
was required for laying of pipelines under the Uppanar
 river. [Paras 29, 30 and 31] [338-G; 339-A-G-H; 340-A-Q] H
    320     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A        ~.1. From the materials available on record that
    include the Environment Impact Assessment Report (EIA)
    and Risk Analysis Report (RA), it cannot be said that
    existence of Uppanar river has been suppressed by the
    Chemplast in its proposals although in these reports
B   Uppanar river has been described as Uppanar canal.
    Similarly, in Section 5 of RA, referen_ce is made to pipeline
    crossing Uppanar canal. The position is clarified by
    Chemplast in their subsequent application made on
    November 14, 2005. [Para 32] [340-0-F]
c       2.2. Paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification prohibits
   manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of
   hazardous substances, as specified in the Notifications
   issued by MOEF (dated 28th July, 1989, 27th November,
   1989 and 5th December, 1989), except transfer of
D hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals and
   refineries and vice-versa, in the port areas. The VCM is
  hazardous substance as notified by notification dated
  November 27, 1989. It is also an admitted position, that
  handling of a substance includes transfer as per Section
E 2(d) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The
  expression, "except transfer of hazardous substances
  from ships to ports, terminals and refineries and vice
  versa in the port areas" was added in paragraph 2(ii) on
  9th July, 1997. Ir the original 1991 Notification there was
F no   exception clause. It appears to have been added for
  the purpose of enabling transfer of hazardous
  substances from ships to ports, ships to terminals and
  ships to refineries and vice versa. Such transfer of
  hazardous substances are not confined to terminals and
G refineries located in the port areas. Interpreting otherwise
  would make the said provision unworkable and would
  also result i~ absurdity inasmuch as the hazardous
  substance would be brought in to the port, refinery or
  terminal in the port area from the ship and would remain
H
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND321
                    ORS.
there and could not be taken beyond the port area A
because of the prohibition. This surely could not have
been the intention of the Executive in adding the
exception clause. [Para 33] [341-F-H; 342-A-E]

      2.3. It is well settled that if exception has been added
                                                                 8
 to remedy the mischief or defect, it should be so
 construed that remedies the mischief and not in a manner
 which frustrates the very purpose. Purposive
 construction has often been employed to avoid a lacuna
 and to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
 It is again a settled rule that if the language used is         C
 capable of bearing more than one construction and if
 construction is employed that results in absurdity or
anomaly, such construction has to be rejected and
 preference should be given to such a construction that
 brings it into harmony with its purpose and avoids              D
absurdity or anomaly as it may always be presumed that
while employing a particular language in the provision
absurdity or anomaly was never intended.
Notwithstanding imperfection of expression and that
exception clause is not happily worded, by applying              E
purposive construction, the expression, 'in the port
areas' should be read as, 'in or through the port areas'.
The exception in paragraph 2 (ii) then would achieve its
objective and read, 'except transfer of hazardous
substances from ships to ports, ships to terminals and           F
ships to refineries and vice versa, in or through the port
areas'. This construction will be harmonious with
paragraph 3(2)(ii) which permits the activily of laying
pipelines in the CRZ area. As a matter of fact, the MOEF
in their affidavit before this Court have clearly stated that    G
the permission granted to Chemplast on 19th December,
2005 is in exercise of the powers conferred under
paragraph 3(2)(ii) of 1991 Notification. There is not
infirmity in the permission granted by the MOEF on 19th
                                                                 H
    322      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   December, 2005. Having held that, there is no illegality in
    the permission granted by the Executive Engineer on
    February 27, 2008 either. The project was established by
    investing huge amount of about Rs. 600 crores and had
    already been commissioned after obtaining necessary
B   approvals and, therefore, it would not be in the interest
    of justice nor in the public interest now to interfere with
    the project. The alternative solution suggested for
    carrying VCM across Uppanar river to the plant is
    rejected. [Paras 33 and 35) [342-E-H; 343-A-C; 343-E]
c       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2284 of 2010.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 31.10.2008 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 21791 of
D 2008.

                                 WITH

    W.P. (C) No. 130 of 2009, T.P.(C) No. 365-367 of 2009.
E       Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Ranjit Kumar, Vikas Singh, Dr.
    Rajeev Dhawan, R. Balasubramanian, K.K. Venugopal, Vijay
    Narayan, Altaf Ahmed, R.F. Nariman, V. Balaji, Naren~fra
    Kumar, Abhishek Anand, C. Kannan, Parvesh Thakur (for
    Rakesh K. Sharma), Aman Ahluwalia, Kunal Bahri Shreekant
F   N. Terdal, K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan, Gopal
    Sankaranarayanan, R. Nedumaran, T. Harish Kumar, P.
    Prasanth, V. Vasudevan, Sushma Manchanda, Senthil
    Jagadet::san (N.P.) for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
         R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 7101
    Of 2009.
         2. In this group of five matters before us, civil appeal is
H   directed against the judgment of Madras High Court passed
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 323
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
on October 31, 2008 whereby a writ petition in the nature of A
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the appellant - M.
Nizamudeen - has been dismissed. Out of the other four
matters; one is a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 130 of 2009
preferred directly before this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution while the other three matters are transfer petitions B
seeking transfer of Writ Petition nos. 37043 of 2006, 8125 of
2007 and 23122 of .2007 filed before the Madras High Court.

      3. M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Limited (for short,
 'Chemplast') proposed to set up a project for manufacturing
 Poly-Vinyl Chloride (PVC) at Semmankuppam village, SIPCOT · C
 Industrial Complex, Phase-II, Cuddalore District (Tamil Nadu).
 An Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIA) as well as
 Risk Analysis Report (RA) for the proposed PVC project was
obtained by Chemplast and, then, they made proposal (vide
 application dated May 27, 2002) to the concerned authorities D
 for setting up the said project. The feasibility of the project was
 considered by public hearing panel in the meeting held on June
 7, 2002. The proposal of Chemplast was sent by the
government of Tamil Nadu with its recommendations, after
accepting the conditional consent issued by Tamil Nadu E
 Pollution Control Board (for short 'TNPCB'), to the Ministry of
 Environment and Forests, Government of India (for short,
'MOEF'). The MOEF examined the proposal submitted by the
Chemplast in light of the questionnaire, EIA, RA and other
relevant documents and accorded environmental clearance to F
the project proposed by Chemplast on November 28, 2005
subject to strict compliance to the specific anj general
conditions laid down therein.

    4. One of the raw-materials for manufacturing PVC is Vinyl G
Chloride Monomer (VCM). VCM is not available indigenously
and Chemplast planned to import the said raw-material for their
plant use from international suppliers. Chemplast in their
proposal also proposed to install a Marine Terminal Facility (for
short, 'MTF') near the seashor.e at Chitrapettai Village for H
    324       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   receiving and transferring VCM from the ships to the PVC plant
    through underground pipeline.

         5. The District Coastal Zone Management Committee in
    its meeting held on June 7, 2005 considered the proposal of
    Chemplast for setting up of MTF including the conveyance
B
    mains and resolved to recommend to the Tamil Nadu State
    Coastal Zone Management Authority (TNSCZMA) to consider
    in principle clearance for the following facilities:

          "01. Laying of pipe lines for the transportation of Vinyl
c         Chloride Monomer (VCM) as permitted vide Ministry of
          Environment and Forests, Coastal Regulation Zone
          Notification dated 19th February 1991 In paragraph 2
          (Prohibited Activities), in sub paragraph (ii) with proviso
          "except transfer of hazardous substances from ships to
D         ports terminals and refineries and vice-versa In the port
          areas".

          02. Treated effluent lines and sea water intake and return
          lines as permitted vide Ministry of Environment and
          Forests, Costal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19th
E
          February 1991 in paragraph 2 (Prohibited Activities) in sub
          paragraph (xii) with proviso "except facilities for carrying
          treated effluents and waste water discharges into the sea,
          facilities for carrying sea water for cooling purposes, oil,
          gas and similar pipelines and facilities essential for
F         activities permitted under this Notification'.

          03. Constructions for jetty activities and control room as
          pt:rmitted vide Ministry of Environment and Forests,
          Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19th February
G         1991 in paragraph 3 (Regulation of Permissible Activities)
          in sub paragraph 2 of (ii) with proviso "operational
          constructions for ports and harbours and light houses and
          constructions for activities such as jetties, wharves, quays
          and slipways'."
H
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 325
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     6. The aforesaid recommendations were considered by             A
the TNSCZMA and they resolved in its meeting held on October
17, 2005 to recommend to the state government to forward thP
proposal to the MOEF for the issue of CRZ clearance to
Chemplast with the following conditions :
                                                                     B
    "1. The unit shall comply safety measures stipulated by the
    Navigational Safety in Ports Committee (NSPC), Goa and
    shall obtain the clearance from NSPC before
    Commissioning of the jetty.

    2. The unit shall inform in advance to the Assistant Director    C
    of Fisheries Department, Cuddalore as and when the
    loading and unloading of VCM is done from the ship.
    3. The unit shall obtain NOC from the Tamil Nadu Pollution
    Control Board before commissioning of the jetty and the          D
    unit shall comply with the norms prescribed by the Tamil
    Nadu Pollution Control Board from time to time.

    4. The unit shall submit the Disaster Management Plan to
    the District Authorities before commissioning of the jetty.
                                                                     E
    5. The Unit shall transport and dispose the treated effluent
    and R.O rejects of the Desalination Plant by conducting
    Hydrological study through National Institute of Ocean
    Technology/National Institute of Oceanography.
                                                                     F
    6. The Unit shall install double walled pipeline in a concrete
    trench for the transport of VCM from the Jetty to the Plant.

    7. The Unit shall install Emergency shutdown valves in the
    Jetty and leak detection system in the onshore pipeline.

    8. The unit shall install adequate fire fighting equipment to    G
    encounter any eventuality due to fire.

    9. The unit's marine activity shall not give any hindrance
    to the public as well as to the aquatic life.
                                                                     H
        326      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2010] 3 S.C.R.


    A         10. The unit shall provide and operate sufficient
              Navigational lighting Indication system during the night
              hours,

              11. The waste water after treatment in the effluent treatment
    8         plant should not be discharged into the sea."

         7. Pursuant thereto, the Director, Department of
     Environment, Government of Tamil Nadu considered the
     resolution dated October 17, 2005 of the TNSCZMA and
     forwarded the proposal to the state government by his
   C communication dated October 28, 2005.

           8. The government of Tamil Nadu by its communication
      dated November 9, 2005 informed the National Coastal Zone
      Management Authority its acceptance of the recommendation
   D made by the TNSCZMA and recommended the proposal of
    . Chemplast seeking environmental clearance for setting up of
      MTF. Along with its communication dated November 9, 2005,
      the state government sent, inter-alia : (i) questionnaire for
      environmental appraisal for MTF (ii) EIA prepared by LT
   E Raniboll; (iii) RA prepared by LT Ramboll; and (iv) minutes of
      the 34th meeting of the TNSCZMA held on 17.10.2005.

               9. Chemplast submitted further application to the MOEF
         on November 14, 2005. The MOEF, then, considered the
         proposal involving the activities namely, (i) construction of island
      F jetty at 1000 meters from the shoreline; (ii) laying of sub-sea·
         pipelines from jetty to landfall point; (iii) construction of port office
         with communication facilities; and (iv) laying of onshore piping
         from landfall point to the CRZ area and thereon to the plant. The
         MOEF took into consideration, inter alia, that the MTF will be
      G located offshore of Chitrapettai village; that the landfall point will
         be at Chitrapettai village, which is 2500 meters from the PVC
,.·,·    plant; that the total length of the pipelines onshore will be 3500
       · meters; that the offshore pipelines and the onshore pipelines
         will be laid in a covered RCC trench; that the island jetty would
      H be consisting of an operating platform, berthing dolphins,
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 327
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
mooring dolphins and interconnecting walkway; that the platform A
and dolphins will be RCC structures suitable for open sea
marine service; that sub sea pipelines will be laid with proper
insulation and mechanical protection; that piping design would
also take into effect stresses arising out of risers, temperature
variation, buckling, buoyancy and sea bed erosion. In the 8
backdrop of aforesaid facts and aspects, the MOEF granted
environmental clearance on December 19, 2005 under the
provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (for
short, '1991 Notification') as amended from time to time for
construction of revetment for setting up of MTF on the specific C
and general conditions set out therein including all the conditions
stipulated by the government of Tamil Nadu in the letter dated
November 9, 2005 and recommendations of the TNSCZMA.

      10. The environmental clearance dated December 19,
2005 granted by the MOEF clarified that the stipulations/           D
conditions set out therein will be enforced among others under
the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the Hazardous Chemicals (Manufacture,
Storage and Import) Rules, 1989, the 1991 Notification and its      E
subsequent amendments and the Public Liability Insurance Act,
1991 and the Rules made thereunder. Chemplast was also
directed to ensure that the proposal complies with the provisions
of the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Tamil Nadu,
1996 (for short, '1996 Plan').                                      F

    11. The TNPCB in light of the environmental clearance
dated December 19, 2005 granted by the MOEF accorded its
consent on September 14, 2006 for the PVC plant as well as
MTF and pipeline project of the Chemplast.
                                                                    G.
     12. Chemplast maderan application on February 6, 2008
to the Executive Engineer, PWD, Vellar.Basi.n Division, WRO,
Vridhachalam (for short, 'Executive Engineer') seeking
permission for carrying seawater and raw-materials through
pipelines laid 3.50 meter below the river bed. The Executive        H
    328     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   Engineer granted permission on February 27, 2008 subject to
    the conditions set out therein. In less than a month on March
    19, 2008, the Executive Engineer, cancelled the aforesaid
    permission observing that VCM may cause pollution and health
    hazard to the public.
B       13. The order cancelling permission was challenged by
  Chemplast by filing writ petition before the High Court of
  Judicature at Madras. The High Court allowed writ petition on
  July 18, 2008 and set aside the order of the Executive Engineer
  passed on March 19, 2008 revoking the permission granted
C on February 27, 2008. It was then that the appellant - M.
  Nizamudeen - filed PIL before the Madras High Court praying
  therein that the order passed by the Executive Engineer on
  February 27, 2008 be quashed and Chemplast be directed to
  forebear from laying of pipelines for drawing VCM raw-material
D from jetty to their plant in Semmankuppam village. In the writ
  petition, M. Nizamudeen did not challenge environmental
  clearances granted by MOEF on November 28, 2005 and
  December 19, 2005. The High Court, vide its Judgment dated
  October 31, 2008, dismissed the writ petition which is subject
E matter of challenge in the civil appeal.

        14. It appears that after Petition for Special Leave to
  Appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court came
  to be filed by M. Nizamudeen before this Court that a writ
F petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been preferred
  directly before this Court by A. Bhunanenthiran praying therein
  that the permission granted by the MOEF on December 19,
  2005 be quashed and a Writ of Mandamus be issued to the
  MOEF, TNSCZMA and TNPCB to ensure that no prohibited
G activity, viz., handling of any hazardous chemical through
  pipelines or otherwise takes place in CRZ areas on both sides
  of Uppanar river.

          15. Be it noted here that three more writ petitions (Writ
    Petition nos. 37043/2006, 8125/2007 and 23122/2007) came
H   to be filed before Madras High Court challenging environmental
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 329
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

clearances granted by the MOEF to the Chemplast. The A
appellant - M. Nizamudeen - has sought transfer of these
petitions to this Court. I.A. No. 1 has been made therein for
deletion of respondent nos. 21 and 22. As the issues are
common, these writ petitions are transferred to this Court and
respondent nos. 21 and 22 are deleted from array of parties. B

     16. We heard learned senior counsel and counsel for the
parties at considerable length.

      17. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
 appellant - M. Nizamudeen - submitted: that 100 meters from      C
 the High Tide Line (HTL) on both sides of Uppanar river are
 CRZ-111 areas where handling of hazardous substance is
prohibited; that VCM is hazardous substance notified under the
Notification of MOEF issued on November 27, 1989 and
handling of a substance includes transfer, as per Section 2(d)    D
of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; that Chemplast did not
seek any permission in respect of the pipelines in the CRZ on
 both sides of Uppanar river, rather existence of Uppanar river
itself was suppressed in the proposals made; that 1996 Plan
was neither annexed nor referred to in the proposals made         E
before the competent authorities, nor was even brought to the
notice of the High Court and it is being referred to and relied
upon for the first time by Chemplast before t~is Court; that
Chemplast while submitting proposals to t,he competent
authorities itself annexed a demarcation map prepared by the      F
National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) to show the High Tide
Line/Low Tide Line [HTULTL] and the relevant CRZ area; that
the said demarcation map prepared by NIO, for the purpose
of environmental clearance, must prevail over 1996 Plan and
in any case 1996 Plan has become redunciant by the                G
amendments in 1991 Notification.

     18. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel alsq
submitted that a close look at the environmental clearance·
dated December 19, 2005 gran~ed by the MOEF would show
that it neither covers nor includes the activities of laying of H
     330      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A      pipelines across and underneath Uppanar river and drawing of
       VCM through pipelines. He lastly submitted that Executive
     · Engineer hi!id no authority to permit laying of pipelines in the
       CRZ of Uppanar river.

          19. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel for writ
B
    petitioner - A. Bhunanenthiran - adopted the submissions of Mr.
    Ranjit Kumar and further submitted that identification and
  . demarcation of CRZ of any particular State involve two distinct
    processes and, although, 1996 Plan does not show the land
    portion of the banks of Uppanar river under CRZ area but the
C very concept of CRZ areas surrounding rivers changed in 2002.
    He would submit that 1998 amendment in 1991 Notification lays
    down that demarcation of CRZ has to be done by the authorized
    agencies and, therefore, the initial determination of CRZ has
 · to be reassessed in light of the demarcation of the HTL I LTL
D and CRZ area carried out by authorized demarcating agencies.

         20. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel would
   submit that the application made on May 27, 2002 was
   abandoned by Chemplast because the statutory designated
E authority, in its inspection held in the month of June 2005,
   declared the relevant area to be CRZ and the District Coastal
   Zone Management Committee and TNSCZMA had examined
   the earlier application for the port area alone. He submitted that
   realising that the CRZ extended to the Uppanar river, Chemplast
F made devious hidden changes in its application made on
   November 14, 2005. Learned senior counsel submitted that the
   permission granted by MOEF on December 19, 2005 is limited
   to MTF and no more. He reiterated that the phrase "and thereon
   to the plant" in the permission dated December 19, 2005 does
G. not cover permis~:on for the pipeline all the way to the Uppanar
   river.

           21. Learned senior counsel urged that 1996 Plan is
     obsolete and must make way for the plan prepared by NIO and
     the, demarcation of CRZ by the NIO being final, the said plan
.H   must prevail over 1996 Plan.
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 331
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     22. According to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, CRZ-111 status has to     A
 be attributed to both banks of the Uppanar river through which
 the pipeline carrying the hazardous substance VCM is to be
 taken to the plant. Referring to the 1991 Notification as
 amended in 2002, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan submitted that VCM can
 be brought on to the port area but not carried any further by · B
 pipeline in or across CRZ area including the CRZ-111 area in
 relation to rivers, creeks and backwaters where the salinity
 concentration is 5 ppt for a distance of 100 meters from the
 HTL or the width of the river whichever is less. He referred to
public trust doctrine and precautionary and public interest c
principles and submitted that in relation to the CRZ, the public
interest to protect the environment is paramount and the benefit
of doubt and precaution should be given to the environment.
Learned senior counsel submitted that interest of Chemplast
and the industry must yield to the public interest in the D
environment. He would submit that although there has been no
challenge to the permission granted on November 28, 2005 to
the PVC plant utilizing the VCM but, since the tanks of
Chemplast probably fall in the CRZ area, this Court must order
the plant to be CRZ compliant by shifting the storage tanks. As
regards carriage of VCM, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan suggested that E
VCM can be carried in tankers at minus 13 degree centigrade
which cannot be done by pipeline by going upstream and
crossing a bridge and this being an alternative solution, the
Court may accept the same which would be consistent with the
public interest principles.                                      F

     23. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior
counsel for the Chemplast submitted that PIL filed before the
High Court and also directly before this Court are not bona fide
as the petitioners in these matters have been set up by a          G
corporate rival, viz., Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited
(CPCL) who wanted the land in question at a much cheaper
price. CPCL instigated and got these persons who had
objected to the scheme in 2002. Learned senior counsel
submitted that after obtaining necessary approvals and             H
    332      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A permissions, the plant at the cost of about Rs. 600 crores has
  been set up and after having obtained the consent to operate,
  the plant has started its commercial production. He also
  submitted that 1996 Plan still holds the field and as per that
  plan, particularly, sheet no. 10 prepared for the Cuddalore
B District, the tidal influence in the Uppanar river ends above
  Thiyagavalli village and below Kudigadu village of Cuddalore
  Old Town area and, therefore, the area on both sides of Uppanar
  river through which the pipeline traverses is not CRZ area at
  all. Mr. K.K. Venugopal contended that the plan prepared by
c the NIO is not approved plan and the said plan cannot override
  1996 Plan approved by the central government under 1991
  Notification. Learned senior counsel also submitted that laying
  of pip~lines for transfer of VCM is not a prohibited activity as
  contended by the petitioners as the interpretation given by them
D to paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification is too restrictive and
  narrow.

        24. Learned counsel for Union of India urged that the point
   at which the pipelines pass under the Uppanar river and its
   banks is not a part of CRZ as per 1996 Plan prepared by the
E state government and approved by the central government and,
  therefore, no permission or environmental clearance is required
  for that portion of the pipeline that passes under the Uppanar
  river nor such permission was granted. He submitted that
  environmental clearance was only required for the MTF and that
F portion of the pipeline that falls within the CRZ abutting the sea,
  i.e. within 500 meters from HTL and vide permission dated
   December 19, 2005, enyironmental clearance was granted for
  this portion of the pipeline only. He would also submit that the
  interpretation given to paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification by
G the petitioners is not correct interpretation and that exception
  in paragraph 2(ii) needs to be construed in a purposive
  manner.

        25. In view of the contentions advanced by the senior
    counsel and counsel for the parties, the first question which we
H
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 333
            ORS. [RM. LODHA, J.]
have to look to is, whether Uppanar river and its banks at the                 A
point where pipelines pass, fall in the CRZ Ill area. If the answer
to this is in the affirmative, obviously, the pipelines crossing
underneath Uppanar river would require environmental
clearance. The other main question we have to consider in
connection with these matters is, whether paragraph 2(ii) of                   s
1991 Notification restricts transfer of VCM (hazardous
substance) beyond port area to the PVC plant through
pipelines. Other considerations would depend on answer to
these two core issues.

     26. In considering the first question, we need to look to C
1991 Notification which came to be issued by the MOEF
declaring the coastal stretches as Coastal Regulation Zone
(CRZ) and regulating activities in such area. 1991 Notification
has been amended from time to time. To the extent it is rele\tant,
it reads:                                                          D

      "Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
      Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment
      (Protection) Rules, 1986, and all other powers vesting in
      its behalf, the Central Government hereby declares the                   E
      coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries, creeks, rivers
      and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in the
      landward side) upto 500 metres from the High Tide Line
      (HTL) and the land between the Low Tide Line (LTL) and
      the HTL as Coastal Regulation Zone; and imposes with                     F
      effect from the date of this Notification, the following
      restrictions on the setting up and expansion of industries,
      operations or processes etc. in the said Coastal Regulation
      Zone (CRZ).
      1[{i) For the purposes of this notification, the High Tide Line          G
      means the line on the land up to which the highest water
      line reaches during the spring tide. The High Tide Line shall

1.   Substituted by S.0.1122(e), dated 29th December, 1998. Gazette of India
     (Extra) No. 849, dated 19.12.1998.                                        H
    334        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         be demarcated uniformly in all parts of the country by the
          demarcating aythority or authorities so authorised by the
          Central Government, in accordance with the general
          guidelines issued in this regard]
          2
           [(ii) The distance from the High Tide Line shall apply to
B
          both sides in the case of rivers, creeks and backwaters
          and may be modified on a case to case basis for reasons
          to be recorded in writing while preparing the Coastal Zone
          Management Plans provided that this distance shall not be
          less than 100 meters or the width of the creek, river or
c         backwaters, which ever is less. The distance up to which
          development along rivers, creeks and backwaters is to be
          regulated shall be governed by the distance up to which
          the tidal effects are experienced which shall be determined
          based on salinity concentration of 5 parts per thousand
D         {ppt). For the purpose of this notification, the salinity
          measurements shall be made during the driest period of
          the year and the distance upto which tidal effects are
          experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated
          accordingly in the Coastal Zone Management Plans.;]
E
          2.      Prohibited Activities :

                The following activities are declared as prohibited
          within the Coastal Regulation Zone, namely :

F         (i) ............ .

          (ii) manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of
          hazardous substances as specified in the Notifications of
          the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment &
G         Forests No. S.O. 594(E) dated 28th July, 1989, S.O.
          966{E) dated 27th November, 1989 and GSR 1037(E)
          dated 5th December, 1989; 3 [except transfer of hazardous

    2.   Inserted as per S.O.(E). No. 550 (E), dated 21st May, 2002.
    3.   Added by S.O. 494(E), dated 9th July, 1997. Gazette of India (Extra) No.
H        393, Part II, Sec. 3(ii), dated 9th July, 1997.
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 335
            ·ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
      substances from ships to ports, terminals and refineries            A
      and vice versa, in the port areas:]



      3.       Regulation of Permissible Activities :
                                                                          B
           All other activities, except those prohibited in para
      2 above, will be regulated as under :

      1......... .

      2. The following activities will require environmental              C
      clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
      Government of India, namely:

      (i) ........ .
                                                                          D
      (ii) 4 (0perational constructions for ports, harbours and light
      houses and construction activities of jetties, wharves,
      Slipways, pipelines and conveying systems including
      transmission lines provided that environmental clearance
      in case of constructions or modernization or expansion of
      jetties and wharves in the Union Territo1'5''bf Lakshadweep E
      for providing embarkation and disembarkation facilities
      shall be on the basis of a report of scientific study
      conducted by the Central Government or any agency
      authorized or recognized by it suggesting environmental
      safeguard measures required to be taken for minimizing F
      damage to corals and associated biodiversity.]

      (3) (i) The coastal States and Union Territory
      Administrations shall prepare, within a period of one year
      from the date of this Notification, Coastal Zone G
      Management Plans identifying and classifying the CRZ
      areas within their respective territories in accordance with
      the guidelines given in Annexures-1 and II of the Notification
      and obtain approval (with or without modifications) of the
4.   Substituted by Notification No. S.O. No. 636 (E), dated 30.5.2003.   H
    336        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A         Central Government in the Ministry of Environment &
          Forests;

          (ii) Within the framework of such approved plans, all
          development and activities within the CRZ other than those
          covered in para 2 and para 3 (2) above shall be regulated
B
          by the State Government, Union Territory Administration or
          the local authority as the case may be in accordance with
          the guidelines given in Annexures-1 and II of the Notification;
          and
c         (iii) In the interim period till the Coastal Zone Management
          Plans mentioned in para 3(3)(i) above are prepared and
          approved, all developments and activities within the CRZ
          shall not violate the provisions of this Notification. State
          Governments and Union Territory Administrations shall
D         ensure adherence to these regulations and violations, if
          any, shall be subject to the provisions of the Environment
          (Protection) Act, 1986."

          27. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action filed a writ
E   petition before this Court challenging some of the amendments
    made in 1991 Notification; they also raised the grievance that
    the MOEF except for issuing the 1991 Notification had taken
    no steps to follow up its own directions contained in that
    Notification. This Court while disposing of writ petition filed by
    Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action [(1996) 5 SCC 281], inter
F   alia, issued the following directions:

          "(1) ........................ .

          (2) ......................... .
G         (3) Considering the fact that the Pollution Control Boards
          are not only overworked but simultaneously have a limited
          role to play insofar as it relates to controlling of pollution
          for the purpose of ensuring effective implementation of the
          notifications of 1991and1994, as also of the Management
H         Plans, the Central Government should consider setting up
    •
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 337
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

    under Section 3 of the Act, State Coastal Management            A
    Authorities in each State or zone and also a National
    Coastal Management Authority.

     (4) The States which have not filed the Management Plans
    with the Central Government are directed to file the            8
     complete plans by 30-6-1996. The Central Government
    shall finalise and approve the said plans, with or without
     modifications within three months thereafter. It is possible
    that the plans as submitted by the respective State
     Governments and Union Territories may not be acceptable
    to the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Returning the       C
    said plans for modifications and then resubmission of the
    same may become an unnecessary, time-consuming and,
    perhaps; a futile exercise. In order to ensure that these
    plans are finalised at the very earliest, we direct that the
    plans as submitted will be examined by the Central              D
    Government who will inform the State Government or the
    Union Territory concerned with regard to any shortcomings
    or modifications which the Ministry of Environment and
    Forests may suggest. If necessary, a discussion amongst
    the representatives of the State Governments and the            E
    Ministry of Environment and Forests should take place and
    thereafter the plans should be finalised by the Ministry of
    Environment, if necessary, by carrying out such
    modifications as may be required. The decision by the
    Ministry of Environment and Forests in this regard shall be     F
    final and binding.

    A report with regard to the submission and th2 finalisation
    of the plans should be filed in this Court and the case will
    be listed for noting compliance in September 1996.              G

                                               "

    28. Paragraph 3(3)(i) of 1991 Notification requires the
Coastal States and UT Administrations to prepare Coastal
Zone Management Plans for identification and classification of      H
    338      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A the CRZ areas within their respective territories in accordance
  with the guidelines given in Annexures I and 11 of the Notification.
  It further mandates Coastal States and UT Administrations to
  obtain approval of such plans from the Central Government. As
  a matter of fact, the said provision provided a period of one
B year for preparation of such plans from the date of the
  Notification, but the Coastal States and UT Administrations
  remained dormant for many years in this regard. However,
  consequent upon directions of this Court, the State of Tamil
  Nadu submitted its Coastal Zone Management Plan to the
c MOEF on August 23, 1996 which was approved on September
  27, 1996 (1996 Plan) containing 31 sheets corresponding to
  maps for different stretches of the coastline of the State of Tamil
  Nadi.J with certain conditions/modifications/ classifications.
  Sheet no.10 pertains to the coastal stretch of Cuddalore
  District. The MOEF, based on sheet no. 10 (1996 Plan) have
0
  stated in their affidavit that the land portion of the banks of
  Uppanar river adjacent to the plant in Thiyagavalli village where
  the pipeline crosses Uppanar river does not come under the
  CRZ area. This position is reiterated by the TNSCZMA in their
  affidavit filed before this Court:
E
          " .................. as per the approved Coastal Zone
          Management Plan; the banks of Uppanar River adjacent
          to the Plant in ThiyagavaJli Village where the pipeline
          crosses River Uppanar does not come under CRZ
F         area .................. ·'· .... "
        29. We were also shown a copy of sheet no.10 from which
  it did not transpire that Uppanar river and its banks where the
  pipelin;:-c:: pass have tidal influence and come under the CRZ
  area. That 1996 Plan does not reflect the area on both sides
G of the Uppanar river through which the pipelines pass as CRZ
  area is not in dispute. The contention of the senior counsel for
  the petitioner/appellant is that 1996 Plan has become
  redundant and obsolete in view of change in the CRZ regime
  due to amendments in 1991 Notification, first on December 29,
H 1998 and then on May 21, 2002.
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 339
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
      30. By 1998 amendment, it has been provided in 1991 A
 Notification that HTL shall be demarcated uniformly in all parts
 of the country by the demarcating authority or authorities so
 authorized by the central government in accordance with the
 general guidelines issued in this regard. By further amendment
 on May 21, 2002, sub-paragraph (ii) was inserted in the first  s
 para of 1991 Notification providing therein that the distance
 from the HTL shall apply to both sides in the case of rivers,
 creeks and backwaters. The said amendment provides that the
 distance up to which development along rivers, creeks and
 backwaters is to be regulated shall be governed by the distancec
 up to which the tidal effects are experienced which shall be
 determined based on salinity concentration of 5 ppt. It further
 provides that salinity measurements shall be made during the
driest period of the year and distance up to which tidal effects
are experienced shall be clearly identified and demarcated in D
the Coastal Zone Management Plans. It is perfectly true that at
the time of preparation and approval of 1996 Plan, the
amendments of December 29, 1998 and May 21, 2002 in 1991
Notification had not seen the light of the day and the declaration
made in first para that the coastal stretches of seas, bays,
estuaries, creeks, rivers and backwaters which are influenced E
by tidal action (in the landward side) upto 500 meters from the
HTL and the land b,atween the LTL and the HTL are CRZ was
kept in view but in the absence of any modification carried out
thereafter, 1996 Plan remains operative. The authorities
authorized to demarcate HTL, we are afraid, cannot override· F
the plan prepared and approved under paragraph 3(3)(i) as the
said paragraph leaves no mann"er of doubt that Coastal Zone
Management Plan prepared by the Coastal State (or for that
matter State Coastal Zone Management Authority) and duly
approved by the MOEF is the relevant plan for identification and G
classification of CRZ areas. The plan prepared by NIO, thus,
cannot be said to have superseded 1996 Plan for the
Cuddalore coastal stretch.
    31. Moreso, while giving approval on September 27, 1996     H
    340       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   to 1996 Plan, the MOEF appended, inter alia, a condition that
    government of Tamil Nadu would not make any change in the
    approved categorization of CRZ area without its prior approval.
    Seen thus, 1996 Plan for the purposes of demarcation and
    classification of CRZ area in the state of Tamil Nadu has to be
B   treated as final and conclusive and has been rightly treated as
    such by the MOEF. We hold, as it must be, that the Uppanar
    river and its banks at the relevant place where the pipelines
    laid by the Chemplast pass do not fall under CRZ Ill area as
    per 1996 Plan and no environmental clearance is needed for
c   such pipelines. The stand of the MOEF is, which seems to us
    to be correct, that they have granted permission to the onshore
    pipelines insofar as these pass through the CRZ abutting the
    sea, i.e. 500 meters from the HTL and no clearance has been
    granted as it was not required for laying of pipelines under the
    Uppanar river.
0
          32. Here, we may also deal with the objection of the
    petitioners that Chemplast has suppressed the material facts
    regarding the existence of Uppanar river in its proposals. In the
    first place, there seems to be no substance in the said
E   objection. From the materials available on record that include
    the Environment Impact Assessment Report (EIA) and Risk
    Analysis Report (RA), it cannot be said that existence of
    Uppanar river has been suppressed by the Chemplast in its
    proposals although in these reports Uppanar river has been
F   described as Uppanar canal. In EIA prepared by L & T
    Ramboll, in Section 3.6.2.2., it is stated:
          "The onshore pipeline to the extent possible is routed in a
          tii1ect line from the landfall point to the Plant in order to
          minimise the length. The route crosses the Uppanar canal
G         where the pipeline will be trenched sufficiently deep into
          the canal bed to avoid impact from grounding vessels,
          dropped objects or dragged anchors. The pipeline section
          crossing the Uppanar :will' be of a type similar to the marine
          pipeline section. As regards the onshore section, the
H
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 341
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
     selection of pipeline type and installation is discussed in   A
     the following paragraphs :
            The main options for the land pipeline will be :
            Trenched, sub terrain pipe line (-1.0 to -1.5 m)
                                                                   B
            Pipeline on low supports at the terrain surface
            (+0.2 to +0.5m)
            Overhead pipeline on masts/columns above
            bus/truck passage heights (+4.5 to Sm)
     (Approximate levels given from existing natural    ground
                                                                   c
     level)"
      Similarly, in Section 5 of RA, reference is made to pipeline
crossing Uppanar canal. The position is clarified by Chemplast
in their subsequent application made on November 14, 2005. D
In the second place, and more importantly, this objection pales
into insignificance in view of our finding that the land portion of
the banks of Uppanar river where the pipelines laid by
Chemplast pass Uppanar river does not fall under CRZ Ill area.
      33. Now, we advert to the other main issue concerning E
 paragraph 2(ii) of 1991 Notification. This paragraph prohibits
 manufacture or handling or storage or disposal of hazardous
substances, as specified in the Notifications issued by MOEF
 (dated 28th July, 1989, 27th November, 1989 and 5th
 December, 1989), except transfer of hazardous substances F
from ships to ports, terminals and refineries and vice-versa, in
the port areas. That VCM is hazardous substance notified vide
notification dated November 27, 1989 is not in dispute. There
is also no dispute, rather it is an admitted position, that handling
of a substance includes transfer as per Section 2(d) of the G
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It was contended by the
senior counsel for the appellant/petitioner that transfer of VCM
in CRZ area is completely prohibited and VCM cannot be
carried through the CRZ except in the port area. Their argumant
is that VCM can be brought onshore by pipeline to the port area H
    342     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 3 S.C.R.


A   but not in the CRZ area. The arguments of learned senior
    counsel have put in issue the scope of expression, "except
    transfer of hazardous substances from ships to ports, terminals
    and refineries and vice versa in the port areas" which was
    added in paragraph 2(ii) on 9th July, 1997. We are called upon
B   to ascertain the true meaning and intention of the Executive in
    bringing this exception. In the original 1991 Notification there
    was no exception clause. It appears to have been added for
    the purpose of enabling transfer of hazardous substances from
    ships to ports, ships to terminals and ships to refineries and
C   vice versa. Is such transfer of hazardous substances confined
    to terminals and refineries located in the port areas? The
    answer in the affirmative may make the said provision
    unworkable and would also result in absurdity inasmuch as the
    hazardous substance would be brought in to the port, refinery
    or terminal in the port area from the ship and would remain there
0
    and could not be taken beyond the port area because of the
    prohibition. This surely could not have been the intention of the
    Executive in adding the exception clause. It is well settled that
    if exception has been added to remedy the mischief or defect,
    it should be so construed that remedies the mischief and not
E   in a manner which frustrates the very purpose. Purposive
    construction has often been employed to avoid a lacuna and
    to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. It is again
    a settled rule that if the language used is capable of bearing
    more than one construction and if construction is employed that
F   results in absurdity or anomaly, such construction has to be
    rejected and preference should be given to such a construction
    that brings it into harmony with its purpose and avoids absurdity
    or anomaly as it may always be presumed that while employing
    a particular language in the provision absurdity or anomaly was
G   never intended. Notwithstanding imperfection of expression and
    that exception clause is not happily worded, we are of the view
    that by applying purposive construction, the expression, 'in the
    port areas' should be read as, 'in or through the port areas'.
    The exception in paragraph 2 (ii) then would achieve its
H   objective and read, 'except transfer of hazardous substances
M. NIZAMUDDIN v. CHEMPLAST SANMAR LTD. AND 343
            ORS. [R.M. LODHA, J.]
from ships to ports, ships to terminals and ships to refineries      A
and vice versa, in or through the port areas'. This construction
will be harmonious with paragraph 3(2)(ii) which permits the
activity of laying pipelines in the CRZ area. As a matter of fact,
the MOEF in their affidavit before this Court have clearly stated
that the permission granted to Chemplast on 19th December,           B
2005 is in exercise of the powers conferred under paragraph
3(2)(ii) of 1991 Notification. We do not find any infirmity in the
permission granted by the MOEF on 19th December, 2005.
Having held that, there is no illegality in the permission granted
by the Executive Engineer on February 27, 2008 either.               c
      34. In view of our foregoing discussion in respect of the
two core issues, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the
objection raised by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel
for the Chemplast about the maintainability of Plls and that the
petitioners have been instigated and set up by a corporate rival     D
- Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited.
     35. By way of footnote, we may observe that the project
has been established by investing huge amount of about Rs.
600 crores and has already been commissioned after obtaining E
necessary approvals and, therefore, it shall not be in the interest
of justice nor in the public interest now to interfere with the
project. The alternative solution suggested by Dr. Rajeev
Dhavan for carrying VCM across Uppanar river to the plant is
noted to be rejected.
                                                                     F
      36. In the result, Civil Appeal and Writ Petition (Civil) No.
 130 of 2009 are dismissed. Writ Petition Nos. 37043 of 2006,
8125 of 2007 and 23122 of 2007 filed before Madras High
Court and transferred to this Court are dismissed. Transfer
Petitions and I.A. No. 7 stand disposed of. I.A. No. 4 filed by G
the appellant - M. Nizamudeen - for initiating proceedings for
perjury against the MOEF is dismissed. The parties shall bear
their own cost.

D.G.                                       Matters disposed of
                                                                     H