Delhi High Court
Harish Chander & Ors. vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & ... on 23 February, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23rd February, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 & CMs No.5584/2012 (for stay), 5729/2013
(for directions), 16629/2013 (for disposal of CM No.5729/2013) &
969/2014 (for rectification of order dated 18.12.2013)
HARISH CHANDER & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Ms. Indira Unninayar with Ms. Kirat
Randhawa & Mr. Narayan Krishan,
Advs.
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM
CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. P. Sinha, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha
& Mr. Avneesh Garg, Adv. for R-
1/HPCL.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-2 to 7
& 14 / UOI.
Ms. Ferida Satarawala, Adv. for
GNCTD.
Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed as a
Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeks the reliefs of:
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 1 of 59
(a) restraining the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL)
(respondent No.1) from constructing and operating its Petroleum
Storage Depot at Tikri Kalan;
(b) a direction to the HPCL to shift / re-site its Petroleum Storage
Installation to a safe distance of a minimum of 10 to 15 Kms. from
the village Tikri Kalan, thereby excluding the residents of village
Tikri Kalan from the high risk zone in case of fire, explosion or
any other accident / incident in the said Petroleum Storage
Installation;
(c) a direction to the Government of National Capital Territory of
Delhi (GNCTD) (respondent No.11) to identify appropriate
alternative land for re-locating the said petroleum storage depot of
HPCL at a safe distance from population / populated areas;
(d) a declaration that the Environment Clearance dated 24th August,
2009 granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MOEF), Government of India (respondent No.7) for setting up of
petroleum storage depot at Tikri Kalan is void ab initio and a writ
quashing the same;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 2 of 59
(e) quashing of the "consent order" if any issued by the Delhi
Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) (respondent No.8);
(f) quashing of the clearances / NOC if any issued by the Petroleum
and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) (respondent No.6),
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoP&NG) (respondent
No.4) and Oil Industry Safety Directorate (OISD) (respondent
No.5) for setting up of the said oil storage depot;
(g) quashing of the Zonal Plan dated 9th June, 2010 of the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) (respondent No.12) and the Clause
6.3 of the Master Plan of Delhi (MPD) notifying the said land near
/ in Tikri Kalan as a major storage site for oil;
(h) a direction to the MoP&NG to incorporate mandatory safety
norms for installation of oil and petroleum storage depots in the
Petroleum Rules, 2002;
(i) a direction to the OISD to declare as mandatory and ensure
compliance of the appropriate safety norms and safety standards
with regard to installation of petroleum / oil depots all over India;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 3 of 59
(j) a direction to the National Disaster Management Authority
(NDMA) (respondent No.2) and Delhi Disaster Management
Authority (DDMA) (respondent No.9) to review the instant
installation of HPCL‟s petroleum / oil storage depot at Tikri Kalan
in the light of M.B. Lal Committee report;
(k) a direction to the Delhi Fire Service Authority (DFSA)
(respondent No.13) to review the instant installation;
(l) a direction to the NDMA to ensure compliance of Safety
Guidelines / procedures into Disaster Management Guidelines;
(m) a direction to the DDMA and the Government of India to
prominently publish its final Chemical Disaster Management
Guidelines;
(n) a direction to the National Executive Committee for Disaster
Management (NECDM) (respondent No.3) to prepare a proper
National Plan for Disaster Management;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 4 of 59
(o) a direction to the NDMA to mandate safety audits before setting
up of hazardous Petroleum Storage Installations and to review
from time to time adherence to safety by such installations;
(p) a direction to the DDMA to formulate policies for installation of
petroleum / oil depots; and,
(q) a direction to the State Executive Committee of Delhi for Disaster
Management (respondent No.10) to ensure coordination between
all concerned agencies of Delhi for setting up / implementation of
any project.
2. It is inter alia the case of the seven petitioners, all of whom claim to be
residents of village Tikri Kallan:
(i) that village Tikri Kalan situated in West Delhi has around 25,000
to 30,000 inhabitants and the surrounding areas within a radius of
1 to 2 Kms. also have around 1.5 to 2 lakhs population, spread
over several villages;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 5 of 59
(ii) that HPCL has set up a Petrol Storage Installation at Tikri Kalan,
without adhering to the necessary distance for the purpose of
safety;
(iii) that the said Petrol Storage Installation violates the right of the
petitioners and the other residents of village Tikri Kalan to live in
a safe environment;
(iv) that the said Petrol Storage Installation is at a dangerously close
distance of only 1440 odd feet i.e. 440 mtrs. from the residences;
(v) that the boundary wall of the installation is at a distance of 180
feet i.e. 55 mtrs. only from the residences of villagers;
(vi) that Tikri Kalan also has bottling plants for Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (LPG) of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), HPCL as well
as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL);
(vii) that after a major fire in 1995 in Jwala Puri and in the light of the
hazards of the plastic industry, Delhi‟s largest plastic waste
industry was also in or about the year 2000 shifted to Tikri Kalan;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 6 of 59
(viii) that a major fire at the IOCL Petroleum Storage Depot near Jaipur
on 29th October, 2009 had left 11 dead and 150 injured; the area
within 5 Kms. radius of the said depot was reported as „danger
zone‟;
(ix) that a seven Member Committee headed by former HPCL
Chairman M.B. Lal was constituted to submit a report on the
Jaipur fire;
(x) that M.B. Lal Committee reported the impact of fire upto 2 Kms.
or more from the site; and,
(xi) that the representations of the petitioners commencing from 11th
February, 2010 till the filing of the petition in or about April, 2012
remained unheeded.
3. The petition came up before this Court first on 2 nd May, 2012 when
notice, only to HPCL, NDMA and DDMA was issued.
4. HPCL filed an affidavit pleading:
(a) that in view of the fire that took place in the Army Ordinance
Depot adjoining the Oil Storage Depot / Tanks of HPCL at Shakur
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 7 of 59
Basti, Delhi, all the Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) were
advised to shift the existing Petroleum Products Storage
Installations from Shakur Basti;
(b) that pursuant thereto process of land acquisition for Petroleum Oil
Terminals across the National Highway-10 from village Tikri
Kalan was initiated in the year 2004 and suitable land was
identified along with the DDA in accordance with the Zonal
Development Plan, Planning Zone-L, West Delhi-III as per MPD-
2021;
(c) that Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was published on 20th January, 2009 in respect of land ad-
measuring 145 Bighas for construction of HPCL‟s terminal;
thereafter notifications under Section 17(1) and under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act were issued and published on 25 th
February, 2009;
(d) that MPD-2021 authenticated by Government of India on 9th June,
2010 also mentions that Shakur Basti Oil Depot had been shifted
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 8 of 59
to a site between Ghevra and Tikri Kalan which will be a major
storage site for oil;
(e) that HPCL, for setting up of its Terminal on the land, obtained:
(i) Environment Clearances dated 24th August, 2009 from the
MOEF:
(ii) Layout Approval dated 27th October, 2009 from PESO;
(iii) Consent dated 23rd December, 2009 of the DPCC;
(iv) Approval dated 2nd August, 2011 from the Chief
Inspectorate of Factories, GNCTD.
(f) that HPCL, while setting up the Terminal, complied with the
provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934, Petroleum Rules, 2002
framed thereunder and the OISD-118 as well as the Local Building
Byelaws;
(g) that the center line of the tank farm containing the storage tanks
storing High Speed Diesel, Superior Kerosene Oil and
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 9 of 59
Petrol/Motor Spirit is 430 mtrs. away from the village side edge of
the National Highway;
(h) that HPCL has left a distance of 125 mtrs. from the center line of
National Highway, as against the required distance of 61.96 mtrs.;
(i) that construction activity for the said Terminal was commenced in
the year 2009 and had been completed and the Terminal is ready
though operations had not begun awaiting some fire-fighting
equipment which are 100% in line with OISD-117, as revised,
subsequent to the M.B. Lal Committee report;
(j) that the said terminal could not be compared with the IOCL‟s
Terminal at Jaipur where the incident of fire had occurred; the said
IOCL Terminal was three times larger than the said Terminal and
the fire water storage capacity of the said terminal is more than
double of the IOCL‟s Jaipur Terminal;
(k) that HPCL and BPCL‟s terminals in close vicinity of IOCLs Jaipur
terminal were not affected;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 10 of 59
(l) that each oil installation has to be analyzed for risks and safety
provisions on its own merits and there can be no blanket
comparison;
(m) that the re-sitement of the HPCL terminal from Shakur Basti to
across the National Highway-10 from village Tikri Kalan was at a
cost of about Rs.190 crores;
(n) that the operation of the said terminal would avoid the current risk
of surface transportation; the input to Shakur Basti installation was
through railway / tank wagons; the input to said terminal will be
through dedicated underground cross-country pipeline thereby
ensuring environment friendliness, safety and faster movement of
the product;
(o) that prior to setting up of the said terminal, Environmental Impact
Assessment and Risk Analysis was carried out in July, 2009;
(p) that the probability of leakage due to tank failure and mechanical
seal failure or other causes is very low in view of stringent
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 11 of 59
precautions taken in the design and construction of the said
installation;
(q) that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) and Risk Analysis
report were studied by the DPCC and consent given thereafter
only;
(r) that subsequent to the incident of fire at IOCL‟s Jaipur Terminal
and in line with the M.B. Lal Committee‟s recommendation,
Quantitative Risk Assessment Studies were carried out in
February, 2012 and whose report revalidated the findings of the
earlier Risk Analysis Studies / reports;
(s) that as per the said report, the impact areas under various scenarios
fall within the premises of the said Terminal;
(t) that the extent of area impacted in the remotest possible event of
vapor cloud explosion also falls within the boundary wall of
HPCL‟s said terminal;
(u) that the said terminal is constructed in accordance with MPD-2021
as well as OISD-118 and HPCL has taken all necessary
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 12 of 59
precautions reviewed by various authorities such as MOEF,
DPCC, PESO and Chief Factory Inspectorate‟s Office, thereby
ensuring that risk, if any, is contained within HPCL‟s said
Terminal;
(v) that OISD-118 relates to the layout of the petroleum storage
installation and OISD-117 relates to fire safety measures to be
taken for an oil storage installation;
(w) that detailed particulars running into as many as 100 items, of the
compliances done for OISD-117 pre M.B. Lal Committee
recommendation and running into 13 items for OISD-117 post
M.B. Lal Committee‟s recommendations are given; and,
(x) that HPCL has thus taken all necessary steps towards fire safety
including those in the M.B. Lal Committee‟s report.
5. The petitioners have filed a response to the aforesaid reply affidavit of
HPCL inter alia pleading:
(I) that the money already spent by HPCL cannot be a relevant factor
inasmuch as the loss estimated in the M.B. Lal Committee‟s report
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 13 of 59
with respect to the incident of fire at IOCL‟s Jaipur storage was of
approximately Rs.280 crores besides the loss of 11 lives;
(II) that safety has to be the primary concern;
(III) that moreover the petitioners had been representing for stoppage of
the construction work since before it began;
(IV) that the M.B. Lal Committee had recommended a buffer safety
zone around High Hazardous Petroleum Installations and had
reiterated that from the explosion, buildings close to the boundary
wall had also been damaged;
(V) that 1440 feet will not be an adequate buffer should there be any
disaster;
(VI) that Tikri Kalan is surrounded by highly inflammable industries
and even a slight spark in the area can set off an eminently
preventable disaster by just ensuring adequate distance / safety
buffer;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 14 of 59
(VII) that the issue is not with respect to putting out a fire but of the
inherent lack of safety in setting up petrol storage depots near
thickly populated areas;
(VIII) that though the reason for shifting of oil depots of IOCL, BPCL as
well as HPCL from Shakur Basti was a fire which took place in
the Army Ordinance Depot adjoining the said oil storage depots
yet in re-locating the oil storage depots, the said concern had been
ignored;
(IX) that since the decision in 2001, Tikri Kalan has become thickly
populated.
6. DDMA in its counter affidavit dated 25th August, 2012 pleaded that
HPCL‟s Petroleum Storage Depot at village Tikri Kalan was surveyed on 30th
May, 2012 and the Surveying Committee had recommended that a Consultant
be appointed to suggest measures to augment safety of the areas surrounding
the depot and the said proposal was under consideration. The District Disaster
Management Plan of West District within whose jurisdiction village Tikri
Kalan falls was also enclosed to the said affidavit.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 15 of 59
7. It was however the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the
said affidavit of the DDMA was contrary to the report of the survey got
conducted by the DDMA;
8. A perusal of the said survey report showed the surveying committee to
have observed:
(A) that the HPCL‟s plant was located at a distance of approximately
500 mtrs. from the residential area of village Tikri Kalan and that
distance is not enough in case of any major disaster spreading out
of the plant;
(B) that HPCL has an elaborate Internal Disaster Management Plan
but there was no External Disaster Management Plan till then;
(C) that the location of LPG bottling plan nearby also poses some
threat to the nearby localities but the PVC bazar is located quite far
away from the HPCL‟s plant and does not pose any imminent
danger in case of any major incident;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 16 of 59
(D) that there is a need of Comprehensive External Disaster Plan for
handling the major disasters in the vicinity of HPCL plant in case
of any accident or disaster inside the plant; and
(E) that there is also a need to have an expert opinion on explosions,
fire and other eventualities like projectiles due to presence of large
number of LPC cylinders in nearby LPG bottling plant etc. and a
comprehensive disaster mitigation plan should be formulated for
external areas of those plants;
9. In view of the said survey report, this Court vide order dated 24th
January, 2013 on the application filed by the petitioners along with the writ
petition for interim reliefs, restrained HPCL from commencing the operation of
the subject project without seeking specific permission from the Court. The
said interim order has continued in force till now.
10. HPCL filed CM No.5729/2013 dated 7th May, 2013 seeking permission
to commence operations, detailing the steps taken by it for a comprehensive
emergency response and disaster management plan for handling any major
disaster in the vicinity of the terminal in case of occurrence of any accident /
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 17 of 59
disaster inside the terminal. In the affidavits subsequently filed in support of
the application, it was inter alia pleaded:
(i) that a Fire Safety Certificate dated 11th November, 2012 for
occupancy of the said storage depot had been obtained from
Delhi Fire Services;
(ii) that Delhi Fire Service was satisfied that HPCL, besides
fulfilling the standards laid down by the OISD, had also
made additional provisions for detection and fire
suppression using inert gas for electrical panels and by
providing additional water monitors in the tank farm to
provide effective water curtain between the tanks for
restricting the heat retention from one tank to another;
(iii) that the ACP (Licensing for Storage of Petroleum Products)
also had given a NOC dated 3rd December, 2012 with
respect to the said storage depot after inspecting the safety
aspects;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 18 of 59
(iv) that in consultation with DDMA, a Consultant had been
appointed for carrying out Qualitative Risk Assessment /
Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan with
respect to the three plants separately as well as together;
(v) that on 7th March, 2013 and 11th March, 2013, mock drills
were conducted by the Consultant with the involvement of
all the agencies including DDMA and prominent villagers
of Tikri Kalan;
(vi) that the Consultant also in its report had stated that the
distance of Tikri Kalan village border from the incident
point is 440 mtrs. and thus the village will have no risk due
to heat radiation also;
(vii) that the consultant had found that the probability of
happening of such an incident itself is five in ten lakhs per
annum;
(viii) that the Consultant had further reiterated that even in the
worst case scenario of fire / disaster at the HPCLs plant,
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 19 of 59
towards Tikri Kalan village, the impact thereof will be
totally contained within the HPCL installation only;
(ix) that safety and firefighting equipment in line with M.B. Lal
Committee recommendations and revised OISD standards
had been installed;
(x) that arrangements have been made for deploying trained
manpower for safe operation of the facility;
(xi) that HPCL being a Government company is fully committed
to the issue of safety and has taken and will at all time take
all steps so that its installation does not pose any safety risk
to any inhabitants;
11. It was further pleaded in the affidavit accompanying the said application
that the petitioners and other villagers of Tikri Kalan did not challenge the
acquisition of the land for the purpose of setting up of the said terminal of
HPCL and rather accepted the acquisition by accepting compensation without
demur and even thereafter did not challenge the installation of the said terminal
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 20 of 59
till 2012 and filed the writ petition only when the terminal was ready to be
commissioned.
12. It was yet further pleaded that the Comprehensive Disaster Management
Plan (CDMP) prepared by the Consultant had been forwarded to the DDMA
and thus the reasons for which this Court had vide order dated 24th January,
2013 restrained HPCL from commissioning the subject storage depot stood
satisfied.
13. DDMA filed a response dated 30th May, 2013 to the application aforesaid
of the HPCL for commissioning of the storage depot, stating:
(i) that HPCL, pursuant to the interim order dated 24th January, 2013
(supra) had submitted to the DDMA a CDMP of its storage plant,
LPG Bottling Plant of IOCL and Oil Terminal of IOCL at Tikri
Kalan, prepared by M/s International Certification Services Pvt.
Ltd.;
(ii) that as a norm, DDMA conducts and puts such plan to test /
analysis on the ground, in order to determine their actual
feasibility and their ability to achieve the targeted results;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 21 of 59
(iii) that accordingly, a mock drill with the help of all Emergency
Support functionaries with respect to the CDMP submitted by
HPCL will be conducted;
(iv) that in this mock drill Indian Army as well as a third party
observer as well as prominent villagers of the area were also
scheduled to be involved;
(v) that only after such mock drill would the DDMA be able to check
the preparedness level of HPCL;
(vi) that the said CDMP submitted by HPCL was also to be forwarded
to the NDMA and the National Institute of Disaster Management
(NIDM) for their comments and suggestions as both the said
institutions are the apex bodies for disaster management at
national level;
(vii) that DDMA would also be consulting the neighbouring North-
West district as inter-district coordination is very important and
necessary in case of any eventuality;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 22 of 59
(viii) that after completion of the said mock drill, a observation report
will be obtained from the Indian Army and on the basis of which
final report of the mock drill will be prepared by the DDMA and
submitted before the Court;
(ix) that DDMA would be able to respond to the request of the HPCL
for commissioning of the plant only after the mock drill is
conducted and the targeted results as claimed by the CDMP
achieved;
(x) that the area surrounding the plant, to the extent 1 to 2 kms. has a
population of 1.5 to 2 lakhs villagers and it is vital to ensure and
protect their safety;
(xi) that the CDMP submitted by HPCL was a piece of paper till the
efficacy thereof is established in the mock drill; and,
(xii) however with the submission of the Comprehensive Emergency
Response and Disaster Management Plan, HPCL had complied
with all the requirements for commissioning and operation of its
Tikri Kalan Oil Terminal.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 23 of 59
14. Needless to state, the petitioners contested the application aforesaid of
HPCL for commissioning of the storage depot by filing reply thereto but at this
stage, it is not deemed necessary to detail the contents thereof.
15. HPCL filed rejoinder to the response aforesaid of DDMA stating:
(a) that DDMA on 27th June, 2013 had conducted the mock drill
aforesaid in the presence of an independent observer and the
villagers of Tikri Kalan including the petitioner No.1;
(b) that in the mock drill the working of the Comprehensive
Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan got prepared
by HPCL was checked;
(c) that HPCL had complied with all the relevant statutory provisions
including Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and / or Notification in
this regard; and,
(d) however if any of the statutory authorities indicate any other
requirement to be fulfilled, HPCL is ready and willing to comply
with the same for the safety and security of the villagers of Tikri
Kalan and other neighbouring villagers.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 24 of 59
The said rejoinder was accompanied with a note on the sequences of
events during the mock drill and the photographs thereof which also show the
independent observer participating in the mock drill interacting with the
villagers.
16. DDMA also submitted to this Court a report of the mock drill conducted
on 27th June, 2013 along with the report of the independent observer who had
participated therein.
17. DDMA in the said report, while analyzing the mock drill, in the column
"strength" of the Comprehensive Emergency Response & Disaster
Management Plan inter alia observed that the Fire Hydrant System of HPCL
and IOCL worked properly - within few seconds of the incident the Fire-
dousing equipment were made operational effectively to control the fire. In the
column of „weakness and suggestions‟, the report is that;
(A) the site being situated in a remote area, the response time by
most of the departments was not very good;
(B) the movement of emergency vehicles was obstructed by
heavy traffic on the access roads;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 25 of 59
(C) the security staff of HPCL and IOCL needs to be trained
more professionally on search and rescue techniques and
first aid;
(D) proper signage board of emergency exit needs to be
displayed at different suitable locations in the premises of
both the plants;
(E) awareness generation-cum-orientation programme about
disaster management should be conducted in the nearby
areas of these plants; and,
(F) there should be mutual collaboration between management
of both the plants to cope up with such incidents more
effectively.
18. The independent observer of the mock drill has inter alia reported that:
(i) the response of HPCL for the on-site emergency was very good;
(ii) two fire tenders reported immediately including one which is
stationed within the premises and started the fighting;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 26 of 59
(iii) the hydrants were also started;
(iv) in the tanks in the vicinity of the tank where the incident was
simulated, water sprinklers were started;
(v) foam had started spilling inside automatically to douse the fire
instantly;
(vi) rescue team with stretchers and first aid team with the first aid box
reached the disaster site;
(vii) though the disaster was managed within the boundary of HPCL
but by way of abundant caution emergency was also declared off-
site;
(viii) the police, fire services and the ambulance services reached the
disaster site beyond the acceptable response time owing to heavy
traffic on the access roads;
(ix) HPCL‟s storage depot is fully automated with entry and exit
control and an integrated tank farm management system;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 27 of 59
(x) each tank is provided with radar type level transmitter, multi
element averaging temperature sensor, water / product interface
measurement and pressure transmitters for density measurement;
(xi) indication is available locally in the tank side display unit as well
as in the control room;
(xii) high velocity long range automated TT loading facility, automated
fire alarm / fighting facility and fairly good communication system
exists;
(xiii) emergency shut down is in the terminal control room to stop all
dispatch operation;
(xiv) Emergency push button to stop all road loading operations are
provided on either side of the gantry and one in the middle of the
gantry and also in the control room;
(xv) that the representatives of Tikri Kalan witnessing the mock drill
did not want to listen to the logic that the storage depot was more
modern, more safe and adhered to the laid down safety and
security norms and continued to complain about the nearness of
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 28 of 59
the installation and the fear of a disaster and blamed their earlier
Sarpanch who had given the NOC on behalf of the village.
19. The independent observer has inter alia recommended; i) that the control
room should preferably be at a higher floor from where the whole plant is
visible; ii) the control room should have a fire proof glass for functioning even
during disasters; and, iii) planting of more trees with shade within the premises
of HPCL.
20. Thereafter, when the matter was listed before this Court on 22 nd August,
2013, though earlier notice of the petition had been issued only to HPCL,
DDMA and NDMA, notice of the petition was issued to the other respondents
also.
21. In response thereto, DPCC has filed a counter affidavit stating that the
Environment Clearance was granted first for laying down of the pipeline from
Bahadur Garh to Tikri Kalan by HPCL and thereafter for setting up of the oil
depot at Tikri Kalan for storage of petroleum products and that the said storage
terminal had been established at site which had been specifically earmarked and
provided under the MPD-2021 for the said purpose and that the consent given
was valid and does not suffer from any infirmity. It is further stated that the
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 29 of 59
storage of petroleum products is not an activity which would fall in the „Red‟
category of industries as per Classification list of industries under the DPCC
consent policy.
22. DDA in its counter affidavit has stated:
(a) that MPD-2021 was prepared in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and was approved
by Central Government and notified on 7th February, 2007;
(b) generally speaking, a proposal is made and public objections /
suggestions are invited under Section 11(a) of the Delhi
Development Act;
(c) in the said public notice, the period prescribed for receipt of
objections and suggestions is 30 to 45 days from the date of the
notice;
(d) the objections and suggestions received are placed for hearing
before the Board consisting of Engineer Member, DDA as
Chairman and the Finance Member, DDA and other persons and
other non official authority members;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 30 of 59
(e) the Board thereafter gives its recommendations which are put up
before the Competent Authority comprising of Lieutenant
Governor, Vice Chairman, DDA and others including elected
members of Legislative Assembly;
(f) the competent authority is empowered to accept / reject or modify
the recommendations;
(g) the Scheme known as "Rohtak Road Scheme" was formulated by
the DDA for 556 hectare of land falling in between Railway Line
of Rohtak Road in West Delhi, for industrial / wholesale /
warehousing use;
(h) a public notice inviting objections / suggestions for the purpose of
change of land use was published in the newspapers on 30 th
August, 1997;
(i) after examination of objections / suggestions, the proposed change
of land use of 556 hectares of Rohtak Road Scheme were duly
considered as per legally mandated procedure;
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 31 of 59
(j) the land use plan of Rohtak Road Scheme was processed as part of
the MPD-2021 and a draft land use plan containing Rohtak Road
Scheme was published for objections / suggestions in March /
April, 2005;
(k) that after consideration of the objections / suggestions, MPD 2021
as per legally mandated procedure as aforesaid was notified on 7th
February, 2007;
(l) that it was the decision of the Government of India to relocate
Shakur Basti oil depots to a site between village Ghevra and
village Tikri Kalan which was to be a major oil storage site and the
same is reflected in Clause 6.3 of MPD-2021;
(m) that the oil storage depots are required for the captive requirement
of the city of Delhi and needs to be located in Delhi due to
operational difficulties outside Delhi;
(n) the decision for relocating the oil depots at Shakur Basti to the said
location was taken in the year 1980-85 and MPD-2001 was
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 32 of 59
notified in August, 1990 when the said area was sparsely
populated and was predominately rural;
(o) however due to massive increase in population, the said area has
become thickly populated and has changed its character from rural
to urban.
23. The petitioners thereafter applied for impleadment of Union of India
through the Ministry of Urban Development as respondent to the petition and
which was allowed vide order dated 21st April, 2013. We may also add that the
petitioners have filed rejoinders to all the counter affidavits, denying contents
thereof, but need is not felt to burden this judgment with content thereof also.
24. We heard the counsels for the parties on 9th & 10th October, 2014 and
reserved judgment. The petitioners however filed an application for further
hearing of the petition. Though the said application was dismissed on 29 th
October, 2014 but fresh written arguments submitted by the counsel for the
petitioners were taken on record.
25. As would be obvious from the counter affidavits of HPCL and other
respondents, the subject oil storage depot is situated on a land earmarked in the
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 33 of 59
Master Plan for the said purpose and has been set up after obtaining all
approvals, permissions, consents under all applicable laws, rules, regulations
and notifications. Though, till the date of filing of this petition and also till the
date of subject oil storage depot becoming ready for commissioning,
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan, as was
required to be in place as per the conditions of the approvals, consents,
permissions granted for setting up of the oil storage depot, was not in place but
now the same is also in place and has also been checked / tested in the mock
drill. It cannot thus be said that the setting up of the said oil storage depot is in
contravention of any law, rule and regulation for this Court to interfere on such
ground.
26. The petitioners have however, also impugned the consents, permissions
and approvals given by the various authorities for setting up of the said oil
storage depot and sought the relief of setting aside thereof. The petitioners in
this regard rely on the recommendations of the M.B. Lal Committee‟s report.
27. PESO in its counter affidavit, with respect thereto has stated that the said
recommendations have not been accepted by the Government and to be
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 34 of 59
actionable, have to be incorporated in the Petroleum Rules, 2002 and which has
not been done.
28. Perhaps, being fully aware of this fact, the petitioners have also sought
the relief of issuance of a direction for amendment of the said Rules. However
though the said relief was claimed but Union of India (UOI) against which the
said relief could have been granted was not even impleaded as a party in the
petition as originally filed. Though UOI has subsequently been impleaded as a
respondent but we do not feel the need for entertaining the said aspect in the
present case for the reason that the independent observer has opined that the
subject oil storage depot is compliant with the M.B. Lal Committee
recommendations also. We may record that no response has been filed by UOI
and the counsel for the petitioners, at the time of hearing, did not press for
amendment of the Petroleum Rules and which relief indeed cannot be granted.
The Petroleum Rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise
of legislative power in this regard conferred on it by the Petroleum Act, 1934
and are a piece of subordinate legislation. We have recently in Mool Chand
Kucheria Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1338/2014, on the conspectus of a
host of precedents, held that no direction amounting to compelling the
Government to initiate legislation can be given. The Supreme Court thereafter
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 35 of 59
in Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1 has reiterated the
principle. In this respect, the pleadings of HPCL, of the subject oil depot
having been equipped with latest inbuilt technology to contain the incident, if
any occurs, of fire / blast also cannot be brushed aside. We have no reason to
doubt the said pleas. Ignoring such scientific advancements and new
technology, even when made available, would tantamount to not availing
benefit thereof inspite of the energy, time, effort and resources including
monetary and human expended in research, innovation, development and
installation thereof and would not be wise. We have all experienced, the huge
space earlier occupied by library in law offices being freed and becoming
available, with the books being compacted in a disk or a pen-drive. The plea of
the HPCL is to the same effect i.e. of the buffer distance which was earlier
required to be maintained having been shortened with the advent of new safety
technology.
29. It cannot also be lost sight of that as per the MPD-2001 as well as MPD-
2021, the prescribed user of the subject land is for the purpose of oil
installations only. Being fully aware of the same also, the relief of quashing the
same also has been claimed in the petition but again without impleading the
UOI. Though UOI has subsequently been impleaded but the petitioners have
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 36 of 59
neither pleaded not argued any basis for claiming the relief of quashing of the
Clause of the MPD-2021 prescribing such use of the subject land. DDA in its
counter affidavit has already elaborated the process that goes into the making /
drafting of a Master Plan, including of inviting objections from the public to the
proposed use. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioners or
for that matter, any other residents of the village Tikri Kalan or neighbouring
villages did not object. They are thereby deemed to have consented to such
land use and are now estopped. The present is a case, not only of the said
residents / villagers having not objected but also of the subject land having been
acquired from them for the said purpose. At that time also, they did not
contend that the purpose stated for acquisition, in this context, was not a public
purpose. There can thus be no manner of doubt whatsoever that the said
residents / villagers were fully aware of the use to which the land being
acquired from them will be put. Thereafter also, they did not object to the
setting up of the LPG bottling plants of HPCL, IOCL and BPCL.
30. The only other ground on which the petitioners sought to challenge the
permissions granted was qua the subject installation being a „Red Category‟
industry. However, as aforesaid, DPCC in its counter affidavit has explained
that though in the draft of the Prevention and Control of Pollution (Uniform
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 37 of 59
Consent Procedure) Rules, 1999, the activities of storage, transfer and
processing of petroleum products was shown in the list of „Red Category‟
industries but the said Rules have not been notified till date. DPCC has also
explained that as per the draft Rules also, there is a provision for granting
sanction to the „Red Category‟ industries and it cannot thus be said that such
industries are prohibited for which no consent can be given.
31. The petitioners, along with the petition have not filed any documents
showing the boundaries of the residential abadi of village Tikri Kalan as they
existed at the time of acquisition of the subject land or as to how far the said
abadi then was from the acquired land. The petitioners have also not filed any
documents to show the title to the land within 500 mtrs. or for that matter 1
k.m. of the subject oil depot i.e. whether it is government land or the land of the
Gram Sabha or belongs to any individual. We had during the hearing enquired
from the counsel for the petitioners that what would be the position if the
persons stated to be residing in close proximity to the subject oil depot were to
be encroachers and unauthorized occupants on public land and whether such
persons after first settling down in close proximity to an establishment, whether
for the reason of seeking employment therein or for otherwise earning
livelihood from activities ancillary to that establishment can subsequently turn
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 38 of 59
around and complain that the activities being carried on in the establishment
pose a danger to their life and the establishment should be shut down.
32. The counsel for the petitioners of course contended that no such issue
had been raised and the petitioners were thus not required to make any such
pleadings or file any such documents.
33. However we do not even know what is the prescribed user of the land,
residences whereon are stated to be threatened by the danger posed by the
subject oil depot. If the prescribed user of the said land is not residential but the
same is being unauthorizedly used for residence, the question would again arise
whether by residing on land not meant for residence, user of the adjoining land
for the purpose for which it is permitted to be used can be objected to. In our
view these are all relevant aspects for adjudication of the lis brought by the
petitioners before this Court and are in fact essential to the adjudication and
without establishing which the petitioners could not expect to succeed. With
respect to the rights of the residents of village Tikri Kalan, the concept of
„right‟ cannot be conceived in isolation. Social experience and public realities
are all relevant as juridically, right is understood as a relative abstraction
flowing from the concept of duty itself. The word „right‟ in favour of one
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 39 of 59
person serves as a sign that someone else is obliged to conform to a pattern of
conduct. Before the Court can be called upon to pronounce on the right asserted
it must be further shown that the activity in relation to which the right is
asserted is sanctioned. However wide a right is, it cannot be as wide as to
destroy similar or other rights in others. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills
Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 591 held that the object of fundamental
rights is to protect individual liberty but individual liberty cannot be considered
in isolation from the socio-economic structure in which it is to operate and that
that there is a real connect between individual liberty and the shape and form of
the social and economic structure of the society.
34. Experience of human life shows that residential settlements, mostly
unauthorized, and where none earlier existed come up in close proximity to
sources of income and livelihood such as commercial establishments. This has
been classified by the geographers and landscape historians as a nucleated
village or a clustered settlement and as one of the main types of settlement
pattern. Such nucleated villages / concentrated settlements have been
precursors to many a small town.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 40 of 59
35. At the same time, we cannot say that the concerns of the petitioners as
residents of the village in the vicinity of the subject oil storage depot are
unfounded. The petition was filed in the wake of the incident of fire in a similar
installation at Jaipur. Moreover, with the intervention of the petitioners, HPCL
which at the time of filing of the petition appeared to be going ahead with the
commissioning of the subject oil storage depot without even preparing the
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan and
without even having such a plan tested, as was required, has been compelled to
do so. The petition, to that extent, has already achieved the purpose of filing
thereof.
36. After giving our anxious consideration to the concerns of the petitioners
pitted against the factum of the subject oil storage depot being situated on a
land specified in the MPD-2021 and acquired for the said purpose and having
been established in accordance with all the requisite approvals, permissions and
consents, we are of the view that no case for restraining the commissioning of
the subject oil storage depot or for considering further the aspects of challenge
to the MPD-2021, Petroleum Rules or the classification of industries or for
grant of any other relief claimed, is made out for the following reasons:
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 41 of 59
A. The subject oil storage depot is in relocation of the existing oil
storage depot at Shakur Basti.
B. The decision for such re-location was taken long back, when the
vicinities of Shakur Basti were densely populated (as they
continue to be, if not more) and the area of the subject oil storage
depot was largely rural and considered the outskirts of Delhi;
though with the passage of time is now stated to have a population
of 1.5 to 2 lakhs.
C. The need for and dependence on oil, of the residents of the city of
Delhi, is inevitable.
D. If we restrain the commissioning of the subject oil storage depot, it
would necessarily mean continued operation of the Shakur Basti
storage depot and which the Government, in public interest, had
taken a decision should be relocated; after all the city cannot be
without petroleum and petroleum products.
E. No challenge was / is made to the decision of the Government to
relocate the oil storage depot from Shakur Basti.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 42 of 59
F. The question which arises is, whether implementation of the
decisions taken in accordance with the then contemporaneous
situations can be stopped / stalled due to the change in the
interregnum.
G. In our opinion, no. We cannot be blind to the ever growing
population which is converting the hitherto uninhabited lands into
inhabited. We cannot also be blind to the human tendency of
making their habitats in close proximity to places of trade and
commerce and which also serve as source of employment.
H. We have no reason to believe that when the Government /
governmental agencies took the decision to earmark the land on
which subject oil storage depot is situated, for the said purpose, all
the said aspects would not have been considered.
I. The Supreme Court in N.D. Jayal Vs. Union of India (2004) 9
SCC 362 held that once the government has taken a considered
decision and has put a system in place for the execution of the
project and such a system cannot be said to be arbitrary, then the
only role which the Court has to play is to ensure that the system
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 43 of 59
works in the manner it was envisaged. It was further held that the
decision or the question whether to have an infrastructural project
or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it
is to be executed are a part of policy making process and the
Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so
undertaken; the only duty of the Court is to see that in undertaking
the decision, no law is violated. It was further observed that at the
penultimate stage of execution of the project it was too late in the
day to think as to why the decision was taken, though at one stage
it was thought it would not be appropriate to continue with the
project. We may add that in the present case, the situation is
beyond even the penultimate stage.
J. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Sachidanand
Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal (1987) 2 SCC 295 relied upon
by HPCL, that where the government while dealing with an
administrative order or action has been alive to various
considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived
at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not
be for the Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 44 of 59
K. We cannot also be unmindful of the fact that there is implicit time
lag in the setting up and commissioning of such mammoth
projects, from the date of conception thereof and when they are to
be set up by governmental agencies, the delay is a little longer. In
the interregnum, there are bound to be considerable changes in and
around the site thereof, particularly qua human habitation. As
aforesaid, the very conception of such a project and the
commencement itself thereof attracts humans to the sites. If it
were to be held that owing to hazards posed by the project to the
human settlement in proximity thereto and which settlement owes
its existence to the project, the project should be abandoned,
possibly no project would ever see the date of commissioning or
live its life. If such subsequent events were to come in the way of
implementation of the decisions taken when the circumstances
were different, it will lead to a hiatus and not allow any
development to take place.
L. The petitioners and the other residents of village Tikri Kalan
though had opportunity to, at the time when the subject land was
so earmarked for the purpose of oil storage and oil products
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 45 of 59
installations, did not object. In fact the said land was acquired for
the said purpose only and thus the villagers from whom the said
land was acquired were fully aware of the purpose for which their
land was being acquired. They then also did not contend that there
could be no oil installation thereon for the reason of the land being
in close vicinity to their residences. On the contrary, they received
compensation for acquisition. Obviously, their residences at that
point of time must have been far away from the said land and the
village over the years appears to have extended its abadi towards
the said land.
M. The concerns of the residents of village Tikri Kalan whose present
population is stated to be 20,000 to 30,000 are also pitted against
larger public interest of the citizens of Delhi numbering over a
crore who need petroleum and petroleum products and which have
to be stored somewhere.
N. The Supreme Court, in G. Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India (2013)
6 SCC 620 relied upon by senior counsel for HPCL, while dealing
with safety concerns expressed with respect to setting up of a
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 46 of 59
nuclear power plant, held that a balance has to be struck between
the benefits of establishing such a plant, since the production of
nuclear energy is of extreme importance for the economic growth
of the country, to alleviate poverty, generate employment, with the
right to life and property. It was held that the Court has to have an
overall view of larger public interest rather than a smaller violation
of right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It
was further held that we have to put up with "minor
inconveniences", "minor radiological detriments" and "minor
environmental detriments" in our lives because the benefits to be
reaped from the nuclear power plant in question are enormous.
The Supreme Court also in Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P.
(1996) 2 SCC 549 held that in an organized society, the right to
live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the human
needs of man, but secured only when he is assured of all facilities
to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his
growth.
O. We find that similarly, in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action
Vs. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 281 it was held that both,
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 47 of 59
development and environment must go hand in hand, the necessity
to preserve ecology and environment should not hamper economic
and other developments; there should not be development at the
cost of environment and vice versa but there should be
development while taking due care.
P. In Essar Oil Vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti (2004) 2 SCC 392 relied
upon by HPCL also, it was held that the aim is to balance
economic and social needs on one hand with environmental
considerations on the other and that there need not necessarily be a
deadlock between development on one hand and environment on
the other.
Q. A balance, thus must be maintained between the need for and the
benefits which the subject oil depot brings and the safety hazards
that it possesses.
R. Undoubtedly, the residents in the vicinity of the existing oil
storage depot at Shakur Basti far outnumber the residents in the
vicinity of the subject oil storage depot. The Supreme Court, in
The State of Maharashtra Vs. The Jalgaon Municipal Council
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 48 of 59
(2003) 9 SCC 731, opined "that smaller interest must always give
way to larger public interest in case of conflict" to be a principle of
good governance in a democratic society. We may add that, a
community of rights, not always synchronizing with each other,
have to be harmonized.
S. Also, while oil to the existing oil storage depot at Shakur Basti has
to be transported from the oil refineries in trucks / wagons,
adversely impacting environment, the transportation to the subject
oil storage depot at Tikri Kalan will be through underground
pipeline already laid and which will also stop the environmental
damage through such transportation of oil by road.
T. Though it is the contention of the petitioners that the oil storage
depot should be shifted from the subject place to some other place
but we also cannot be blind to the fact that there is hardly any
space left in the city which can be said to be far away from
habitation or which will remain far away from habitation. Though
DDA in a meeting held on 29th July, 2013 is stated to have taken a
decision to hereafter have oil storage depots in the NCR region but
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 49 of 59
the position is not very different there also. Moreover, as
aforesaid humans have a tendency of congregating around
wheresoever alternative site is announced and starts coming up.
Our experience shows that it is generally the families and extended
families of those involved in setting up of such projects who in the
absence of any enforcement mechanism against encroachment of
surrounding lands make up their residences in the vicinity and
continue to reside there even after the work of construction and
setting up is complete.
U. We cannot also ignore the fact that the residents of the village of
Tikri Kalan have themselves tacitly consented to the land being
notified for the subject use. The petitioners are but a few of the
residents who though have filed the petition as a PIL for the
benefit of all residents but cannot be assumed to be representing
even the majority of the residents. It is not known as to what the
view of the majority is. It is possible that majority of villagers,
who owing to acquisition of their agricultural land cannot depend
upon agriculture as a source of livelihood, are happy with such
development.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 50 of 59
V. We are satisfied that HPCL has taken all possible steps to prevent
any disaster as well as to meet such a disaster. We cannot also
loose sight of the fact that large sums of money have already been
spent on the project and which was a factor taken into
consideration in G. Sundarrajan supra also.
W. In G. Sundarrajan it was further observed that once justification
for establishing the nuclear power plant had been vindicated and
all safety and security measures had been taken and necessary
permissions and clearances had been obtained from all statutory
authorities, apprehension expressed by some of the consequences
flowing from commissioning thereof, however legitimate, cannot
be permitted to override the justification of the project. It was
observed that nobody on this earth can predict what would happen
in future and to a larger extent we have to leave it to destiny but
once the justification test is satisfied, the apprehension test is
bound to fail. It was further observed, apprehension is something
we anticipate with anxiety or fear, a fearful anticipation which
may vary from person to person. It was further held that electricity
is the heart and soul of modern life; to sustain rapid economic
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 51 of 59
growth, it is necessary to double the supply of energy and thus the
production of nuclear energy is of extreme importance for the
economic growth of our country.
X. The said test, in our opinion, equally applies to petrol and
petroleum products which are also necessary in furtherance of the
commercial needs of the country and we have to necessarily have
storage facilities and thus striking a balance between such
developmental needs on one hand and security and safety concerns
on the other should be aimed at.
Y. Even according to the M.B. Lal Committee, such installations
should be at a distance of 250 to 300 mtrs. from the habitation.
While according to the petitioners, the said distance has to be
measured from the outer boundary of the installation, according to
HPCL, it has to be measured not from the outer boundary of the
installation but from the storage point within the said boundary.
We are satisfied that from the storage point within the boundary of
the subject installation, the distance of the habitation is 430 mtrs.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 52 of 59
and which satisfies the M.B. Lal Committee‟s recommendations
also.
Z. In our opinion, the insistence ought not to be upon the distance
being from the boundary wall. What is necessary is to provide a
buffer from the hazardous point of the installation. In the present
case, obviously HPCL has acquired land much more than actually
required for storage tanks, so as to provide a buffer around the said
storage tanks. When HPCL has already provided buffer within its
boundary, it cannot be compelled to provide buffer beyond its
boundary also.
ZA. Though the counsel for the petitioners during the hearing relied
upon recent news reports about the Disaster Management
Authorities being ineffective but we are afraid, we cannot proceed
on the said premise.
ZB. We have no reason not to believe the report of the experts who
have certified that the requisite safety measures have been
complied with. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491,
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 53 of 59
reiterated in G. Sundarrajan supra, held that normally the court
should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the
experts and it would normally be wise and safe for courts to
leave the decisions to experts who are more familiar with the
problems which they face than courts generally can be. It was
held that the court cannot sit in judgment on the views
expressed by the technical and scientific bodies in setting up of
the concerned project and on its safety and security. Similarly,
in Essar Oil supra it was held that a court will not substitute it
own assessment in place of opinion of persons who are
specialists and who may have decided the question with
objectivity and ability.
37. The counsel for the petitioners has in her written submissions
accompanied with a document titled „Detailed Notes‟ and list of dates and a
glossary of pleadings, all running into thirty six pages, besides repeatedly re-
emphasizing the danger the subject oil depot poses to the residents has
alleged various violations by HPCL of what according to the petitioners the
standards of safety should be. It is contended that the vacuum between the
outdated standards of safety in the existing laws / rules / regulations and
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 54 of 59
what such standards ought to be, should be filled in by the court by issuing
guidelines. The deficiencies in pleadings of the petitioners pointed out by us
are sought to be got over by contending that in issues of public importance
and enforcement of fundamental rights the procedural laws have to be
relaxed. G. Sundarrajan is sought to be distinguished by contending that all
the safety guidelines were complied therein. It is contended that the
acquisition of land being under emergent provisions, there was no right to
object factual dispute of the distance between the subject oil depot and the
human settlement is of course reiterated. It is further contended that the
danger which the subject oil depot poses could be perceived only after the
Jaipur incident. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the road
between the subject oil depot and the human settlement is itself the ignition
point and thus the distance has to be measured from the road and not even
from the storage point within the depot else submissions are made on the
need for re-drawing the standards. The village of Tikri Kalan is described as
in the green belt.
38. We only need to state that we have in arriving at the decision
aforesaid weighed and considered all the said submissions and for the
reasons stated above do not find any merits in any of the contentions.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 55 of 59
39. We thus do not find the petitioners entitled to any of the reliefs
claimed.
40. Though we have held the petitioners not entitled to the reliefs claimed
but at the same time, it is essential to ensure that the Comprehensive
Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan on the basis of existence
whereof we are refusing to interfere, continues to be efficacious. For the said
purpose, we direct:
A. HPCL to:
(i) Comply and continue to comply with all the suggestions in
the subject plan to a tee.
(ii) Review the said plan from time to time and at least once
every year and to keep updating the same with the changing
circumstances, needs and with advancement in technology
and to cooperate in the conduct of the mock drills herein
below directed to be undertaken regularly from time to time
and to comply with the all suggestions recommendations in
accordance therewith.
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 56 of 59
(iii) Ensure at all times the readiness of the human and other
resources, part of the said plan.
(iv) Enquire about the title of the land in the vicinity of the said
installation and if the said land is found to be public land, to
initiate action for removal of the encroachment in the form
of residences therefrom.
(v) From time to time, as part of its corporate social
responsibility, educate the residents of the vicinity about the
mock drill to be undertaken in the event of a disaster and
about the other safety precautions.
(vi) Comply with the suggestions, from time to time, of DDMA,
NDMA and other regulatory body.
(vii) Within four weeks hereof, designate and from time to time
designate a General Manager level officer by name, to be
responsible for compliance with all these directions as well
as all rules / regulations concerning safety and maintenance
and readiness of all preventive measures. We make it clear
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 57 of 59
that the officer so designated shall be responsible / liable in
law for breach if any.
B. GNCTD to:
(I) Enquire about the title to the land within a radius of about
500 mtrs. from the boundary wall of the subject oil storage
depot and if the same is found to be public land, within six
months hereof remove all encroachments therefrom.
(II) Within six months herefrom, prepare a scheme / plan for
ensuring quick / timely response by the outside agencies at
the time of need, including by making a scheme for
blocking traffic on the access roads to enable the rescue
teams to reach the subject site at the earliest.
C. DDMA to;
(A) Periodically and in any case latest every year, conduct a
mock drill to check the efficacy of the Comprehensive
Emergency Response and Disaster Management Plan of
HPCL and to issue necessary directions for making up
W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 58 of 59
deficiencies if any and suggestions for further improvement
and to ensure compliance therewith.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 23, 2015 „gsr‟ W.P.(C) No.2611/2012 Page 59 of 59