Kerala High Court
Anjusha Ayyappan vs Union Of India on 8 June, 2022
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WA NO. 400 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.21861/2021 DATED 18-02-2022 OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE]
APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS:
1 ANJUSHA AYYAPPAN, AGED 31 YEARS
W/O. DEEPAK.M.K., THALAKKOTTUMOOLA HOUSE, THENGODE P.O.,
EDACHIRA, ERNAKULAM-682 030
2 ANIL THANKAN, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.THANKAN, SHIVADAM, 205/1,VAYANASALA KOZHYHALA ROAD,
THENGOLA P.O., EDACHIRA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
3 PRAKASH PHILIP, AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. A.K.PHILIP, ERANACKAL HOUSE, K.P.KURIAN ROAD,
VAYANASALA JUNCTION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4 SARAMMA JACOB, AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. LATE PUNNEN JACOB, SHALON, PUTHENPURACKAL K.P.KURIAN ROAD,
THENGODE P.O., EDACHIRA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
5 BIBU RAJ, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. K.RAJAGOPAL, PUNNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAYANASALA JUNCTION,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
6 ANU.S.R., AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.REGHUNADHAPILAI.R., MAYUKHA, K.P.KURIAN ROAD,
NEAR ST.MARY'S CHURCH, THENGODE, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
7 ELDO.C.C., AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. C.M.CHERIAN, CHATHANATHU HOUSE, BAVAPADY, AMBUNAD,
EDATHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 561.
BY ADVS. SRI. K.P.PRADEEP
SRI. HAREESH M.R.
SRI. SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SMT. RASMI NAIR T.
SRI. T.T.BIJU
SRI. T.THASMI
SRI. M.J.ANOOPA
WA:400/2022 -:2:-
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTRI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4 KOCHI-SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,
CORPORATE OFFICE, MALAYIL MAJESTY BUILDINGS, 174-G,
2ND FLOOR, TRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 031,
REPRESENTED B ITS CHAIRMAN.
5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
KOCHI SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED,CORPORATE OFFICE,
MALAYIL MAJESTY BUILDINGS, 174-G, 2ND FLOOR,
TRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
6 COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
KOCHI SALEM PIPELINE PRIVATE LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE,
MALAYIL MAJESTY BUILDINGS, 174-G, 2ND FLOOR, TRIPPUNITHURA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
7 THE SECRETARY,
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682 030.
8 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
MARKETTING DIVISION,COCHIN, LPG IMPORT TERMINAL,
PUTHUVYPPU, ERNAKJLAM-682 508,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, (LPG-PROJECT).
R1 BY ADV. SHYAMDEEP S. SHENOY CGC
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI. K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI. SAJI VARGHESE T.G
R7 BY ADV. SMT. REKHA AGERWAL
R8 BY ADV. SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
BY ADVS. SMT. MARIAM MATHAI
SRI. K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI. JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI. KURYAN THOMAS
WA:400/2022 -:3:-
SRI. PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI. RAJA KANNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA:400/2022 -:4:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2022 S. Manikumar, CJ Instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.02.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.21861 of 2021, by which, the writ court closed the writ petition, without acceding to any of the prayers sought for by the writ petitioners, however, directing that the pipelines and the "SV Station" will be operationalised only after the necessary "Qualitative Risk Assessment" and such other unexpendable steps and measures are complied with and completed, in terms of the "Regulations", either by Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Body or its accredited Agency; and after obtaining necessary permits and consents from all the statutory entities like the District Administration, Disaster Management Authority, PESO Fire and Rescue Department, Factories and Boilers Department, Pollution Control Board etc. It was also ordered that the official respondents shall ensure that these directions are complied with in its letter and spirit.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that, Sectionalizing Valve (SV) Station is a Gas Pipeline System which WA:400/2022 -:5:- contains the valve installed at regular intervals, to isolate pipeline section during emergencies like leakage and such other contingencies. Hence, as per Exhibit-P1 notification dated 12.02.2016, issued by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, framing Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipelines) Regulations, 2016, human habitation should be a parameter to identify a location for SV Station. It is also mandated therein that to minimize the hazard of communication of fire to the station from structures on adjacent property, the location of SV Station should be identified with all caution to ensure safety and security standards.
3. Appellants further state that now the 4th respondent, which is in a project for laying LPG Pipeline from Cochin to Salem, has identified their SV Station and is acquiring the land for the same, in a residential locality, wherein 17 residential plots are locked, out of which, 11 residential houses are constructed and occupied. The actions of respondents 4 to 6 to acquire the land, construct and install SV Station and Valve, which is in a residential locality, is the concern of the appellants, who are the residents and landowners there and that the WA:400/2022 -:6:- actions are in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Appellants further state that reading of Exhibits-P4, P5 and P6, make clear the gravity of the issue and it is an alarming fact that the 4 th respondent is constructing the SV Station, in a plot surrounded by residential houses. Though the appellants have suggested an alternative location and land for acquisition, which is an isolated place where no residential units are in existence, in the immediate proximity, the same has not been considered and the 4 th respondent is proceeding with the proposed site.
5. In such circumstances, challenging the alleged illegal and unreasonable action of the respondents, W.P.(C) No.21861 of 2022 has been filed by the appellants, for the following reliefs:
(i) To call for the records leading to issue Exhibit-P2 notification, and direct respondents 4 to 6 to relocate the proposed Sectionalizing Valve Station, from the present proposed site in Sy. No.170 in Block 7 of Kakkanad Village, in Kanayannur Taluk to any other alternative place or location, wherein the human habitation is absent.
(ii) To call for the records leading to issue Exhibit-P2 notification, and issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ or writs or order or direction to quash the same to the extent of acquisition of land for construction of Sectionalizing Valve Station, at the present proposed site in Sy. No.170 in Block 7 of the Kakkanad Village, in Kannayannur Taluk.WA:400/2022 -:7:-
(iii) To declare that the construction and installation of Sectionalizing Valve Station at the present proposed site in Sy. No.170 in Block 7 of Kakkanad village, in Kanayannur Taluk, affecting the safety and security of the life and properties of the petitioners, their family members and including children are against the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thereby unconstitutional.
(iv) Direct the respondents to pay cost of this proceedings.
6. Before the writ court, on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the Chief Executive Officer, Kochi Salem Pipeline Private Limited, Corporate Office, Tripunithura, has filed a statement, wherein it was, inter alia, contended that the 4th respondent has also established SV Stations in its pipeline route, as mandated by OISD & PNGRB guidelines, and is proposing to purchase 34 cents of land in Survey No.170 of Block 7 of Kakkanadu Village, to establish the SV Station and to erect the Sectionalising Valve and accessories. The Sectionalising valve consists of a simple underground remotely operated valve mechanism and is used to isolate and evacuate the petroleum pipeline section in case of emergency and repair. The temperature and pressure inside the petroleum/LPG pipeline can also be measured using the instruments installed on both sides of Sectionalising Valve. The power, protection, safety and control system panels will be housed in a building of about WA:400/2022 -:8:- 1500 square feet, to be constructed inside the SV Station. A reliable and dedicated communication system to interact with all stations is designed, installed and maintained there, to ensure safe operations of the pipeline under both normal and emergency situations. For this, two Optical Fibre Cables (OFC) are being laid along with the pipeline and will terminate in the SV Stations.
7. Respondent No.4 has further contended that the LPG pipeline system shall be equipped with Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Leak Detection System. There is no production, manufacturing and treating of petroleum products in the SV Station or in the building situated therein. In additional to the above, the following facilities will be therein in the SV Station:
(a) A security guard room with toilet and bathroom.
(b) A 3 meter high compound wall with concertina fencing on top of boundary wall and main gate.
(c) One security guard will be posted in SV Station throughout and will operate shifts.
(d) Earth pits, earthing grid, drains, inspection chambers, septic tank, soak pit and a monkey ladder.
8. Respondent No.4 has further contended that the SV Station established for safety and security of the pipeline as per the norms of WA:400/2022 -:9:- OISD and PNGRB will not cause any danger or health hazard to the petitioners or their families, but it only helps them since it is only a safety mechanism.
9. Respondent No.4 has further submitted that it is a private limited company and not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. By establishing a Sectionalizing Valve Station in the adjacent property of the writ petitioners, there is no infringement of the peaceful and unimpeded right to life of the petitioners or will endanger their safety and life as alleged by them. According to the 4th respondent, paragraph 1.5.1.2 of Schedule 1A of Exhibit-P1 does not relate to SV Stations where the valve is installed underground (with long stem to operate), but it deals with pipeline installations with pump stations. As per the Petroleum rules "installation" means any premises wherein any place has been specially prepared for the storage of petroleum in bulk, but does not include a well-head tank or a service station. Pump station is the facility to pump the LPG/Petroleum product from the storage of LPG/petroleum products. There are only two pump stations in the pipeline route of the 4th respondent in Kerala State, one at BPCL, Kochi refinery and the other WA:400/2022 -:10:- at IOCL Puthuvaypeen Import Terminal where the storage facility for petroleum products are provided, which are far away from the Plot in question where the SV Station is proposed to be made.
10. The 4th respondent has further contended that the allegation that because of the SV Station, remaining 6 residential plots may not get permission for construction of residential houses is baseless. There is no bar in construction of residential or other buildings in the property of the petitioners because of the SV station proposed to be installed in the plot in Survey No.170 of Block 7 of Kakkanad village. The SV has to be installed on the pipeline and the SV Station cannot be shifted to the plot as suggested by the writ petitioners. That apart, the allegation that respondent No.5 and his subordinate officers are having more interest in the real estate; that they are working for the landowner; and that the unholy relationship with the land owner with ill motivated financial interest of the officials are the reason for declining the shifting of the location is absolutely baseless and false.
11. It was also contended that there is no illegality on the part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioners in paragraph 17 of the writ petition and that the allegation that regulations are ignored due to WA:400/2022 -:11:- the high handed influence and ill-motivated intentions of the officers of respondent No.4 is absolutely false and baseless. The allegation of the writ petitioners that the presence of SV station in the abutting land is really a concern on the safety of the residents and the respondents are attempting to infringe the fundamental right of the petitioners to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is also baseless. For the foregoing reasons, the 4th respondent prayed for dismissal of the WP(C).
12. Apart from the above, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent 4 company and respondent No.5 have filed an affidavit, wherein, it was stated that a reading of Regulation 1.8.2 of Exhibit-P1 regulations, makes it clear that valves shall be provided for isolating sections of station piping, in order to limit the hazard and damage from accidental discharge and to facilitate repair and maintenance of piping facilities and critical equipment. Thus, the valves are not hazardous, but are fixed to limit any hazard.
13. According to the 4th respondent, Exhibit-P1 regulations mandate that for LPG pipeline facilities, mainline sectionalizing or block valves shall be installed at a maximum spacing of 12 kilometres in industrial, commercial and residential areas. In fact, SV stations are WA:400/2022 -:12:- established even in thickly populated cities like Vashi, Thane, etc. During construction in any pipeline project, there could be some variation in the alignment, due to unavoidable circumstances or unavailability of permissions as envisaged. This change in alignment does not cause any change in the process design basis unless there is variation in the vital parameters. Other than routine maintenance, there is no activity envisaged in SV3. It is further reiterated that such SV stations are to be mandatorily installed in all the pipeline routes drawn by all the oil companies, throughout the country, and it is established to prevent any possibility of fire or hazard in the pipeline. It is also stated that SV station is only a safety measure for safe operation of the pipeline and is provided for the benefit of the people residing in the locality.
14. It is pertinent to note that Petronet CCK Ltd., which has drawn petroleum pipeline from Cochin to Karoor in Coimbatore, has set up SV stations as per the norms of the Board, which includes residential areas as well. In order to substantiate the said contention, respondent No.4 has produced Exhibit-R4(a) photographs showing the boundary wall of the SV station set up by Petronet CCK Ltd., abutting a residential WA:400/2022 -:13:- house in a residential area. It is also submitted that the said SV station is functioning there for the last more than two decades. Likewise, the respondents have also established several SV stations in its pipelines at various parts of the State; many studies were conducted; and that the Ministry of Environment, forest and Climate change, based on the study report and other relevant factors, granted CRZ clearance. Further, the respondents have secured consent to establish the pipeline from the Kerala Pollution Control Board as evident from Exhibit-R4(f) and it was renewed upto 31.12.2013 by order dated 11.12.2018. Hence, it is contended that all the required permits have been obtained by the respondents and all requirements under Exhibit-P1 have been complied with by the 4th respondent.
15. That apart, the 4th respondent has filed an additional statement clarifying certain points raised by the writ petitioners in their reply affidavit dated 15.11.2021.
16. After considering the pleadings and material on record, by the impugned judgment, a learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, negating the contentions of the appellants and the mandatory stipulations on the basis of habitation and locations of residents, in WA:400/2022 -:14:- terms of Exhibit-P1 regulations and the provisions of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act, 1962. However, in the appeal, it is contended that the vital aspects raised by the appellants have been ignored and event the feasibility of the alternative land has not been considered. Hence, this writ appeal.
17. The question raised by the appellants is this appeal is that that whether the finding and reasoning of the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment is sustainable or not; and that the action of the 4th respondent to acquire the land, construct, and install the SV Station comprising the safety and security concerns of the local residents are legally sustainable, since it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
18. Based on the above pleadings, appellants have raised the following grounds:
A. The impugned judgment and the findings therein are perverse and against the legal propositions and factual circumstances. Learned single Judge ought to have held that the installation of SV station in the subject site is a clear infringement of the fundamental right of appellants/ petitioners herein.
B. Learned single Judge ought to have found that the provisions of law on ensuring the safety and security of the habitants in the locality, which are the important and mandatory stipulations in Exhibit-P1 regulations and P&MP Act, 1962 WA:400/2022 -:15:- are grossly violated. The concept of habitation, as referred to in Exhibit-P1, should have been read along with the stipulations in Section 7 of the P&MP act, 1962 and the learned single Judge ought to have held that the safety and security of the residents should have been taken into consideration, while establishing a SV station.
C. The construction of SV station in the LPG Gas Pipeline project of the 4th respondent in the proposed site is highly illegal and against the safety parameters in Exhibit-P1 regulations. Construction of SV station cannot be permitted in a residential area, infringing the fundamental right to life of the appellants, who are the residents of the abutting land in the proposed site.
D. Right to life is not a mere right of habitation, a courtesy of the State, but is a fundamental right for living with dignity and that in a safe environment, too. The hazards of fire and gas leaking in a SV station are not a mere probability, but there are several such experiences in the past. In such an unsafe environment, appellants with their spouses and children cannot live in peace. The actions of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are nothing, but infringing the fundamental right to life of the appellants. Any action of the State or its instrumentalities, which is unjust, unfair and unreasonable, is a subject matter for judicial review and the decision of the 4 th respondent to construct the SV station, which should not have been permitted in a compact residential area, is nothing but arbitrary and against Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
E. Article 39(f), as a matter of Directive Principles of State Policy, mandate special protection to children from all kinds of moral and material abandonment. The protection and promotion of welfare of the people, as mandated in Article 38, also take the responsibilities to ensure a fare and secure living environment. The construction of SV station is planned and being undertaken, without having the statutory compliance under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and without have statutory environmental and risk clearance under various statutes. There cannot be any permission to construct a hazardous station in the residential locality, as WA:400/2022 -:16:- per the respective statutory provisions. Pollution control Board has insisted distance rule. A gas pumping and regulating station, is more hazardous even than the petrol or diesel outlet, in any case. The 4 th respondent is bound to follow the rick audit as well as statutory compliance before planning construction of a SV station.
F. It is finally contended that the alternative proposal of the appellants, as a practical suggestion to reduce the hazards and to ensure more safety and security to the residents of the locality has been grossly neglected by the respondents. The economic burden or any other material parameters of the 4 th respondent cannot be a reason for compromising the safety and security of the local people.
19. Based on the above, Dr. K.P.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellants, made submissions.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
21. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 61 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Act, 2006, the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board have framed Exhibit-P1 regulations viz., Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Technical Standards and Specifications including Safety Standards for Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipelines) Regulations, 2016. Clause 3 of the regulations speaks about application and it reads thus:
"(1) These regulations shall apply to all the entities authorized by the Board to lay, build, operate or expand WA:400/2022 -:17:- petroleum and petroleum products pipelines under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand Petroleum and Petroleum Products Pipelines) Regulations, 2010 and any other petroleum and petroleum products pipelines including dedicated pipelines.
(2) Definitions of design, material and equipment, piping system components and fabrication, installation and testing, commissioning, corrosion control, operation and maintenance and safety of petroleum and petroleum products pipelines network shall be in accordance with the requirements of ASME B31.4 except in so far as such requirements are specifically cancelled, replaced or modified by the requirements specified in these regulations."
22. Clause 4 of Exhibits-P1 regulations speaks about scope and it reads thus:
"(1) Requirements of these regulations shall apply to all existing and new petroleum and petroleum products pipelines.
(2) These regulations shall cover pipeline design, materials and equipment, piping system components and fabrication, installation, testing, corrosion control, operation and maintenance and safety of petroleum and petroleum products pipelines. The pipelines include dedicated pipelines for specific consumers but excludes offshore crude pipelines, onshore well flow, feeder and collector pipelines."
23. Clause 5 of Exhibit-P1, dealing with the objective of the regulations, states that these standards are intended to ensure uniform application of design principles and to guide in selection and application of materials and components, equipment and systems and WA:400/2022 -:18:- uniform operation and maintenance of the petroleum and petroleum products pipelines system and shall primarily focus on safety aspects of the employees, public and facilities associated with petroleum and petroleum products pipelines.
24. Clause 7 of Exhibit-P1 regulations speaks about compliance to these regulations and it reads thus:
"(1) The Board shall monitor the compliance to these regulations either directly or through an accredited third party as per separate regulations on third party conformity assessment.
(2) If an entity has laid, built, constructed or expanded the petroleum and petroleum products pipelines network based on some other standard or is not meeting the requirements specified in these regulations, the entity shall carry out a detailed Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) of its infrastructure. The entity shall thereafter take approval from its Board or highest decision making body for non-conformities and mitigation measures. Approval of the Board or highest decision making body of entity along with the compliance report, mitigation measures and implementation schedule shall be submitted to the Board within six months from the date of notification of these regulations.
(3) The continuation of operation of existing petroleum and petroleum products pipelines network shall be allowed only if it meets the following requirements, namely:-
(i) The petroleum and petroleum products pipelines system shall have been tested initially at the time of commissioning in accordance with ASME B 31.4. The entity shall have proper records of the same. Such test WA:400/2022 -:19:- record shall have been valid for the current operation.
Alternatively, if such a record is not available, the entity shall produce in service test record of the petroleum and petroleum products pipelines network having been tested as per ASME B 31.4 or carry out intelligent pigging survey along with fitness for purpose report:
Provided that-
(a) the entity shall submit self-certification in support of meeting the above requirements within a month but not later than three months of notification of these regulations;
(b) certifications referred to in para (a) shall be done for petroleum and petroleum products pipelines in construction and commissioning, operation and maintenance. The self certification shall be submitted to the Board with mitigation plan and implementation schedule;
(c) the critical components of the system as identified by the Board for such existing networks shall be complied with these regulations within a period specified at Appendix from the date of coming into force of these regulations and the authorized entity shall maintain the integrity of the existing petroleum and petroleum products pipelines system at all times in accordance with separate regulations on Integrity Management System; and
(d) provisions of these regulations related to operation and maintenance procedures shall also be applicable to all such existing installations."
25. Clause 1.1 in Schedule 1A-Design, in Exhibit-P1 regulations, deals with general provisions and it reads thus:
"1.1.1 The pipelines shall be designed in a manner that ensures adequate public safety under all conditions likely to be encountered during installation, testing, commissioning and operating conditions. All materials WA:400/2022 -:20:- and equipments shall be selected to ensure safety and suitability for the condition of use.
1.1.2 The selection of design for liquid hydrocarbon pipelines shall be based on the fluid properties, service, required throughout, operating and environmental conditions.
1.1.3 All components of the pipeline system shall be designed to be suitable and fit for the purpose throughout the design life.
1.1.4 Cross country pipeline of size less than NPS 4 inch shall not be used."
26. Clause 1.5 in Exhibit-P1 regulations speaks about location and layout of pipeline installations. Clause 1.5.1 thereto speaks about location and it reads thus:
"1.5.1.1 Originating, intermediate and terminal facilities of cross country pipeline such as Originating Pump Station or Originating Station, Intermediate pump or pigging Station, Tap-off Station and Sectionalizing Valve Stations etc. shall be located considering following aspects:
i. Functional and pipeline hydraulic requirements. ii. Environmental consideration based on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Risk Analysis (RA) study for the pipeline and stations.
iii. The Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) study and Hazard Analysis (HAZAN).
iv. The availability of space for future augmentation of facilities.
v. Approachability, water table and flood level and natural drainage.
vi. Availability of electric power and water. vii. Habitation.WA:400/2022 -:21:-
1.5.1.2 In addition to above, pipeline installations should be located so as to minimize the hazard of communication of fire to the pump station from structures on adjacent property."
27. Clause 1.8.2 of Exhibit-P1 regulations speaks about valves and it reads thus:
"Valves shall be provided for isolating sections of station piping in order to:
a) Limit the hazard and damage from accidental discharge from piping.
b) Facilitate repair and maintenance of piping facilities and critical equipments.
For LPG Pipeline facilities, API SPEC 6D valves suitable for LPG services shall be provided. All valves shall be fire safe conforming to API 607/6FA."
28. Clause 1.8.2.6 of Exhibit-P1 regulations speaks about mainline or Sectionalizing Valves and it reads thus:
(i) Sectionalizing valves shall be installed where required for operation and maintenance and control of emergencies.
Factors such as topography of the location, ease of operation and maintenance including requirements for section line fill shall be taken into consideration in deciding the location of the valves. However, in any case the distance between two consecutive sectionalizing valves shall not be more than 50 km.
(ii) For LPG pipeline facilities, mainline sectionalizing or block valves shall be installed at maximum spacing of 12 km in industrial, commercial and residential areas.
(iii) For LPG installations, Remotely Operated Sectionalizing or Mainline block valve(s) shall be provided with blow down connection to isolate and evacuate the pipeline WA:400/2022 -:22:- section in case of emergency and repair. All blow down piping shall have double valve segregation.
(iv) Mainline block valves shall be installed on both sides of the major river crossings and public water supply reservoirs. The valves shall be as close as possible near the upstream and downstream bank of the river and public water supply reservoirs for isolation of these portions of the pipeline and these valves must be remote operated.
(v) The valve stations shall be located at a readily accessible location such as near roads and shall be provided with an access road from the nearest all weather metalled road. Overhead power lines shall not cross directly over the process area of the valve station facilities.
(vi) The provisions of remote operated feature should be as per the operation and control philosophy to be adopted for the pipeline by the entity or operating company. For LPG installations, Sectionalizing or Block valves with remote shut off provision from the control room shall be provided at the boundary of station pipeline inlet and outlet locations to isolate the station facility. At locations where valve stations are combined with pump or repeater stations, the requirements of safe distance and statutory clearance, as applicable, shall be followed.
(vii) Valve shall be installed buried and provided with suitable stem extension for ease of operation. Sectionalizing valve on the piggable section of pipeline shall be full bore type to allow safe passage of pigs. The valve shall meet as minimum requirements of API SPEC 6D or ISO-14313 - "Specification for pipeline valves". Isolation of earthing of actuator to be done to avoid interference in C.P.
(viii) Actuator for the actuated valve may be selected based on type of valve, availability of power and project philosophy. Pipeline sectionalizing valve may be electrically or pneumatically or hydraulically operated. Valves used in mainline shall be with butt weld ends. Valves used in buried portion shall be with butt weld joints only, except at the locations where hot tapping operation is to be carried out WA:400/2022 -:23:- for which, buried flanged end valve may be provided.
(ix) Valve surface shall be applied with suitable corrosion protection coating.
(x) All joints between the mainline pipe and the first valve on the branch, including the inlet to first valve, should be welded in order to restrict possible leakage which cannot be isolated by the closure of the valve.
29. Exhibit-P2 is the notification S.O.2889(E) dated 20.08.2020 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, which states that, whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transport of Liquefied Petroleum Gas from Kochi Refinery of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the State of Kerala to Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu and that a pipeline should be laid by M/s. Kochi - Salem Pipeline Private Ltd; and whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipelines, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the lands under which such pipelines are proposed to be laid described in the schedule annexed to this notification; now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein; and any WA:400/2022 -:24:- person, interested in land described in the said schedule may, within 21 days from the date on which the copies of the notification, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying or the pipeline under the land to Sri. Anilkumar P., Competent Authority, Kochi - Salem Pipeline Private Ltd., Karun Enclave, 2 nd floor, Door No.B2, S.N. Junction, Refinery Road, Tripunithura, Pin - 682301.
30. The sole question emerging for consideration in this appeal is, whether any interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.02.2022.
31. The vital aspect for that purpose to be considered is, whether the safety precautions taken by the respondents, in order to regulate the Kochi Salem Pipeline in a residential area, requires interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
32. Going through the statements filed by the contesting respondents, it is clear that Sectionalizing Valve stations are installed, in order to avoid any hazards and damage likely to cause, due to the accidental discharge of gas from the pipeline, and to facilitate maintenance of pipeline facilities and critical equipment. The statement WA:400/2022 -:25:- and documents make it clear that SV stations have to be installed at a maximum of 12 kilometres in industrial, commercial and residential areas, in order to regulate and control the supply line, and therefore, such stations cannot be located in a place different from the place where the pipeline passes. Moreover, the contesting respondents have submitted that SV stations have to be installed in dry lands, whereas, there is no such requirement for laying the pipeline, and in order to avoid inconvenience caused to the public, the respondents have chosen paddy fields for the purpose of acquiring the rights from the public for laying the pipelines. In fact, by providing SV stations, safety of the public is protected, and accordingly danger can be averted. Hence, the allegations to the contrary, contained in the appeal that it would endanger the inhabitants of the area, cannot be sustained at all.
33. The issue as regards installation of SV stations are regulated by Exhibit-P1 regulations issued by the Government of India. There is no case for the appellants that the SV stations were put up in violation of the said regulations prescribed by the Central Government and apart from wild allegations, appellants have not produced any material to establish that the SV stations are potentially dangerous to the people WA:400/2022 -:26:- residing in the nearby locality. Moreover, we are informed during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondents that 50% of the work relating to installation of SV stations is already over and it would be made functional, after taking all the safety precautions, in accordance with the regulations and also the guidelines prescribed in that regard.
34. In view of the regulatory mechanism provided by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, to avoid any possible danger, and since the SV stations are a mandatory requirement for regulating and controlling the gas pipeline, it cannot be said that the SV station cannot be installed in a residential area. Even though the appellants have pointed out a place where there is less density of population, as is discussed above, even going by the accepted norms and guidance, the valves have to be fixed on the pipeline itself, within a maximum of 12 kilometres distance from the other and a most suitable location to be identified for setting up the SV station.
35. In view of the technical aspects to be followed by the statutory authorities, in order to regulate, control, and avoid damages from any accidental discharge from the pipeline, and to take safety precautions, WA:400/2022 -:27:- we are unable to agree with the contention raised by the appellants that construction of the SV stations would be a potential danger to the residents of the locality.
36. Taking into account the factual, technical, and legal circumstances discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made out a case for interference with the impugned judgment, since the learned single Judge has taken into account the entire technical and legal aspects involved in the subject matter while rendering the judgment, and we could not locate any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifiable to be interfered with, in an intra court appeal.
In the result, this writ appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Krj WA:400/2022 -:28:- APPENDIX APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:-
A:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CONSTRUCTIONS IN PROGRESS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN SURVEY NO.170 OF BLOCK 7 OF THE KAKKANADU VILLAGE OF KANAYANNUR TALUK IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:-NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO C.J.