This pipeline was taken over by GAIL from ONGC in the companyceptualisation stage itself.
ONGC had also laid around 680 kms.
Subsequently, GAIL added additional pipelines and spurlines to the HBJ pipeline.
of pipelines in various locations of the companyntry such as the Gujarat region, Bombay region, K.G.basin, Cauvery basin etc.
The respondents are the Gas Authority of India Ltd. hereinafter referred to as GAIL , the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. hereinafter referred to as ONGC , the Central Pollution Control Board and the Union of India.
GAIL has filed a datailed affidavit in reply to these allegations.
GAIL was formed in the year 1984 for the purpose of handling natural gas related activities.
This resulted in gas leakage from this pipeline at Dhaula Kuan on 8th July, 1993.
Originally ONGC had planned the HBJ pipeline which was to run from Hazira to Babrala and Jagdishpur for supply of gas to the fertilizer and power plants enroute.
The gas pipeline was required to be laid keeping adequate distance from human settlements but this has also number been done and lastly she companytends that GAIL has number obtained clearance from the Department of Explosives.
She has filed the present petition as a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner companytends that the high pressure gas pipelines laid by GAIL and or ONGC are unsafe in certain specified places and are potentially hazardous.
The petitioner has prayed that these pipelines should be closed until an independent enquiry by experts certifies and declares that these pipelines are safe for further operation.
She has alleged lack of experience, lack of supervision or companytrol by GAIL officials and mismanagement by GAIL so that the companytractors have used sub standard material and bad workmanship in laying the pipeline in violation of the safety guidelines.
The petition was filed pursuant to gas leakage from a high pressure gas pipeline of GAIL at Dhaula Kuan in Delhi on or about 8th of July, 1993.
Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J The petitioner is a practising advocate.
