No tower near HPCL refinery: SC to developer

Mumbai: Taking serious note of security concerns expressed by HPCL, the Supreme Court has ruled against a developer who had submitted plans to construct a tower very close to a refinery of the oil major in a central suburb of Mumbai.      In a majority two-to-one verdict on December 10, the SC dismissed an appeal filed by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd against an order passed in April 2012 by the Bombay high court. The HC had ruled in favour of HPCL and allowed its petition, which sought the quashing of permissions given by the BMC for change of user and development permission for residential and commercial complex on land less than 500 metre away from the HPCL installations in Mahul, Chembur.      The SC bench of Justices Hemant Gokhale and Ranjana Desai said there were serious security concerns expressed by the police since HPCL is a sensitive installation set up in 1952 and construction permissions were rightly refused by the HC, which had asked BMC to take into account security and health concerns. In his dissenting judgment, the recently retired Justice G S Singhvi, however,set aside the HC order and sent the matter  back for its reconsideration.      The dispute essentially was over proposed construction of the residential-cumcommercial complex by Oswal on its property. The project envisages four commercial buildings, one office building, eight residential buildings to accommodate 3,000 flats. In 2006, he had obtained permission to change the land use from industrial to residential.      Apart from the refinery, HPCL has about 117 storage tanks on the property which store, at any given point of time, oil and petroleum products of over 11 crore kilo litre.      HPCL had lodged their primary concerns over health, fire and security hazards the construction posed. "Municipal authorities were required to consider these objections but refused to do so," the SC said.      What weighed with the two judges, apart from security risks HPCL faced as a terror target, was also the "importance of healthy environment". "Where human habitation is permitted in proximity to hazardous plants, there is an immediate, as well as long term danger of exposure. The planning authority cannot ignore these aspects," the two judges said. "Public interest cannot be sacrificed at the altar of commercial interests," they added.