Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A.     NOS.61     &     62     OF     2012   

IN      WRIT     PETITION     (C)     No.657     of     1995   

RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE, … PETITIONER TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY    

VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O     R     D     E     R      

ALTAMAS     KABIR,     J.   

1. On 6th July, 2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No.657  

of 1995 filed by the Research Foundation for  

Science, Technology and Natural Resources Policy

Page 2

2

was disposed of by this Court.  I.A. No.61 of 2012  

which had been filed by M/s Best Oasis Ltd. on 9th  

May, 2012, and I.A. No.62 of 2012 filed by Gopal  

Krishna on 18th June, 2012, were heard separately  

since in the said applications relief was prayed  

for in respect of a specific ship named “Oriental  

Nicety” (formerly known as Exxon Valdez), which had  

entered into Indian territorial waters and had  

sought the permission of the Gujarat Pollution  

Control Board and the Gujarat Maritime Board to  

allow the ship to beach for the purpose of  

dismantling.  Such relief would, of course, be  

subject to compliance with all the formalities as  

required by the judgments and orders passed by this  

Court on 14th October, 2003, 6th September, 2007 and  

11th September, 2007 in the Writ Petition.  The  

Applicant, M/s Best Oasis Ltd. is the purchaser of  

the said ship.  

Page 3

3

2. Another prayer was for a direction to the  

above-mentioned Authorities and the Atomic Energy  

Regulatory Board to inspect the ship and to permit  

it to enter into Indian territorial waters and  

allow it to anchor in Indian waters, which has been  

rendered redundant, since, as submitted by Ms.  

Hemantika Wahi, learned Standing Counsel for the  

State of Gujarat, the said stages have already been  

completed and the ships is anchored outside Alang  

Port.   

3. After the application had been filed, the Union  

of India in its Ministry of Environment and  

Forests, and the Gujarat Maritime Board, were  

directed to file their respective responses  

thereto.   

4. Appearing on behalf of the Union of India in  

its Ministry of Environment and Forests, Mr. Ashok  

Bhan, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that an  

affidavit had been affirmed by Shri M. Subbarao,

Page 4

4

Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, in  

which it had been disclosed that a Technical Expert  

Committee (TEC) had been appointed pursuant to the  

directions contained in the order dated 6th  

September, 2007, passed by this Court in the Writ  

Petition.  The said Committee Report dealt in great  

detail with the hazards associated with the ship  

breaking industry, occupational and health issues,  

social welfare activities of workers, occupational  

hazards associated with breaking of different  

categories of ships of special concern, handling of  

hazardous material and the role and  

responsibilities of various defaulters. Mr. Bhan  

submitted that the said Report also focused on  

ships of special concern in assessment of hazardous  

wastes and potentially hazardous materials.  It was  

urged that a definite procedure for anchoring,  

beaching and breaking of ships had been laid down  

in the Report of the Committee which is applicable  

to ship-breaking activities in all the coastal

Page 5

5

States of India. In fact, it was pointed out by Mr.  

Bhan that the procedures recommended by the  

Committee were already in force and in terms of the  

order dated 6th September, 2007, the Report of the  

Committee is to remain in force until a  

comprehensive Report, incorporating the  

recommendations of the Committee, was formulated.  

In addition, Mr. Bhan submitted that in compliance  

with this Court’s order dated 14th October, 2003,  

the Union of India, in its Ministry of Steel, has  

constituted an Inter-Ministerial Standing  

Monitoring Committee to periodically review the  

status of implementation of the recommendations of  

the Technical Expert Committee.   

5. Mr. Bhan submitted that the provisions of the  

Basel Convention relating to the disposal of  

hazardous wastes are being strictly followed and as  

far as the present ship is concerned, it was for  

the Gujarat Maritime Board, which is the concerned

Page 6

6

local authority to take a decision for anchoring  

and subsequent beaching and dismantling of the  

ship, in strict compliance with the directions  

contained in the order passed by this Court on 6th  

September, 2007.   

6. Mr. Bhan also referred to an affidavit affirmed  

on behalf of the Ministry of Shipping, in which it  

was stated that for permitting a vessel to anchor,  

inspection is to be carried out by the State  

Maritime Board in consultation with the State  

Pollution Control Board and Customs Department.  In  

the affidavit, it has been specifically averred  

that an inspection of the vessel had been carried  

out by the Gujarat Maritime Board and it was found  

that the ship had been converted from an oil tanker  

to a bulk carrier in 2008 and there was no sign of  

any hazardous/toxic substance on board. It was also  

stated in the affidavit that the Board had given  

its “no objection” for beaching of the ship and the

Page 7

7

Ministry of Shipping, therefore, had no say in the  

matter.  

7. Appearing for the Gujarat Pollution Control  

Board, Gandhinagar, Ms. Hemantika Wahi submitted  

that in keeping with the directions contained in  

the order passed by this Court on 6th September,  

2007, an Inter-Ministerial Committee and Standing  

Monitoring Committee to review the status of  

implementation of the directions of this Court from  

time to time, had been constituted.  However, as a  

matter of precaution, the Gujarat Pollution Control  

Board had not recommended that permission be  

granted to the vessel in question to anchor, until  

further orders were passed by this Court in the  

pending Writ Petition.  Ms. Wahi submitted that in  

the order dated 6th September, 2007, this Court had  

recommended the formulation of a comprehensive code  

to govern the procedure to be adopted to allow  

ships to enter into Indian territorial waters and

Page 8

8

to beach at any of the ports in India for the  

purpose of dismantling. However, till such code  

came into force, the officials of the Gujarat  

Maritime Board, the concerned State Pollution  

Control Board, officials of the Customs Department,  

National Institute of Occupational Health and the  

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, could oversee the  

arrangements. Ms. Wahi submitted that the  

application for recommendation for anchoring could  

be decided in view of the aforesaid order dated 6th  

September, 2007, and the TEC Report which had been  

accepted by this Court vide the said order, with  

liberty to file a response to the application at a  

later stage, if required.   

8. Ms. Wahi then referred to the affidavit  

affirmed on behalf of the Gujarat Maritime Board by  

Capt. Sudhir Chadha, Port Officer, Ship Recycling  

Yard, in the Gujarat Maritime Board at Alang.  Ms.  

Wahi submitted that in terms of the directions

Page 9

9

given on 25th June, 2012, on the application of M/s  

Best Oasis Ltd., the Gujarat Maritime Board  

instructed the company to bring the vessel to the  

Port area of Alang for inspection.  Ms. Wahi  

submitted that when the vessel arrived outside the  

Port area of Alang on 30th June, 2012, officers of  

all concerned departments, including the Gujarat  

Maritime Board, the Gujarat Pollution Control  

Board, Customs Department, Explosives Department,  

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, went on board the  

ship to inspect and ascertain that there was no  

hazardous/toxic substance on it.  Ms. Wahi  

submitted that upon inspection, nothing hazardous  

or toxic was discovered on the vessel, which was  

found to be in conformity with the documents  

submitted for desk review.  The Gujarat Maritime  

Board, therefore, certified that the ship was fit  

for breaking/dismantling and beaching permission  

would be given after following the procedure laid

Page 10

10

down by TEC and approved by this Court in its order  

dated 6th September, 2007.

9. The recommendations of the Gujarat Maritime  

Board and the Gujarat Pollution Control Board to  

allow the vessel to beach at Alang was hotly  

contested by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned Advocate  

appearing for the Petitioner, Research Foundation  

for Science, Technology and Natural Resources  

Policy.  Mr. Parikh urged that while disposing of  

the Writ Petition on 6th July, 2012, this Court had  

directed the Union of India and the Respondents  

concerned to follow the procedure which had been  

laid down in the Basel Convention in the matter of  

ship-breaking, which often generated large  

quantities of toxic waste.  Mr. Parikh submitted  

that none of the safeguards which had been put in  

place by the Basel Convention had been complied  

with or followed in permitting the Oriental Nicety  

to enter into Indian territorial waters.  Mr.

Page 11

11

Parikh submitted that under the Basel Convention,  

the country of export of the ship was required to  

inform the country of import of the movement of the  

ship in question and that it was non-hazardous and  

non-toxic. Mr. Parikh submitted that in the instant  

case such intimation was neither given nor was the  

ship certified to be free from hazardous and toxic  

substances.   

10. It was also urged that the owners of the vessel  

were required to obtain clearance from the  

Government of India to bring the ship into Indian  

territorial waters, which was dependent upon the  

availability of landfill facilities, as also  

facilities for beaching.  Mr. Parikh submitted that  

it is only after completion of the aforesaid  

requirements, that the ship could be allowed entry  

into Indian territorial waters and to beach at any  

of the ship-breaking yards at any of the Ports  

designated for such purpose.  Mr. Parikh submitted

Page 12

12

that in the absence of proper compliance with the  

norms laid down in the Basel Convention, the vessel  

ought not to have been permitted to enter into  

Indian territorial waters or the Port area at Alang  

by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board and the  

Gujarat Maritime Board.  Mr. Parikh further  

submitted that now the vessel had been permitted to  

enter the Alang Ship-breaking Yard, further steps  

to dismantle the ship should not be permitted,  

without definite steps being taken to ensure that  

there were no hazardous substances on board the  

ship or that the ship itself was not a hazardous  

object.       

11. Mr. Parikh further submitted that if during the  

dismantling of the ship any toxic or hazardous  

materials were found on board the ship or was found  

to be an integral part of the ship, adequate  

precautionary measures should be taken immediately  

to neutralize the same either by incineration or by

Page 13

13

creating adequate landfills for disposal of such  

waste.  

12. We have carefully considered the submissions  

made on behalf of the respective parties in the  

light of the submissions made on behalf of  

Applicant, M/s Best Oasis Ltd., the owner of the  

vessel in question, that huge demurrage charges are  

being incurred by the ship owner each day.  We are  

of the view that once clearance has been given by  

the State Pollution Control Board, State Maritime  

Board as well as the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board  

for the vessel to beach for the purpose of  

dismantling, it has to be presumed that the ship is  

free from all hazardous or toxic substances, except  

for such substances such as asbestos, thermocol or  

electronic equipment, which may be a part of the  

ship’s superstructure and can be exposed only at  

the time of actual dismantling of the ship.  The  

reports have been submitted on the basis of actual

Page 14

14

inspection carried out on board by the above-

mentioned authorities, which also include the  

Customs authorities.  The Atomic Energy Regulatory  

Board has come up with suggestions regarding the  

removal of certain items of the ship during its  

dismantling.  The suggestions are reasonable and  

look to balance the equities between the parties.  

13. We, therefore, dispose of the two IAs which we  

have taken up for hearing and direct the concerned  

authorities to allow the ship in question to beach  

and to permit the ship owner to proceed with the  

dismantling of the ship, after complying with all  

the requirements of the Gujarat Maritime Board, the  

Gujarat Pollution Control Board and Atomic Energy  

Regulatory Board.  It is made clear that if any  

toxic wastes embedded in the ship structure are  

discovered during its dismantling, the concerned  

authorities shall take immediate steps for their

Page 15

15

disposal at the cost of the owner of the vessel,  

M/s Best Oasis Ltd., or its nominee or nominees.  

14. Before parting with the matter, we would like  

to emphasize that in all future cases of a similar  

nature, the concerned authorities shall strictly  

comply with the norms laid down in the Basel  

Convention or any other subsequent provisions that  

may be adopted by the Central Government in aid of  

a clean and pollution free maritime environment,  

before permitting entry of any vessel suspected to  

be carrying toxic and hazardous material into  

Indian territorial waters.

14. There will be no order as to costs.   

………………………………………………………J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.    (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi Dated: 30th July, 2012.