2005 PLP 1523 (CLD)

The petitioners claim to be residents of Altaf Park and Green Park in the area of Shalimar Town, Lahore, and have filed this petition for a public purpose, seeking a writ of mandamus against respondents Nos. 1 to

3. It is claimed that respondents Nos.4 to 10 are running their industrial units in the area which is predominantly residential: that the noise and other emissions from the running of industries is above the permissible limits; that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were repeatedly approached by the inhabitants of the locality asking them to intervene and to perform their legal obligations, but in spite of initial surveys and some reports, no positive action has been taken. It is claimed that lives of the petitioners as well as of other inhabitants have become miserable.

2. Respondents Nos.4, 6 and 8 have filed their written statements and are contesting the claim of the petitioners. Similarly, respondent No.3 has filed comments to the petition with the prayer that the petition may be dismissed. Respondent No. 1, the Environmental Protection Agency has also filed a written statement wherein it is stated that the agency has conducted detailed survey and reported that these units were in residential areas which should be shifted from there.

3. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the provisions of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (Act XXXIV of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Act, to contend that respondent No.1 should be directed to proceed to use its powers under this provision of law. He has relied on section 11 which prohibits certain discharges and emissions and section 17 which provides for penalties. He asserted that the petitioners would be happy if respondent No. 1 is directed to proceed under the above statute.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.4, 6 and 8 has urged that out of scores of industries running in the area, only 5/6 units have been picked up and arraigned as respondents. His grievance is that these respondents cannot be discriminated against and if the order for shifting has to be passed, it has to be in respect of all the industrial units. He has, however, maintained that these units are working in the area for number of years and cannot be directed to be shifted. He has also pointed out that parties are litigating on the civil side and presently an appeal is pending in the District Court. He submits that, in these circumstances, the writ petition should be dismissed.

5. In view of the relief being claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, larger issues on merits need not be examined. The provisions of the Act do show that the same are comprehensive and the Agencies and the Authorities created under the Act have also been given the power to lay down the necessary standards as also to enforce the same by invoking penal provisions in accordance with law. While respondent No. 1 in its comments has claimed that it has recommended shifting of industries, it is failing to prosecute the offenders in the event of its reaching the conclusion that the discharges and emissions are not lawful or more than prescribed. This omission on the part of respondent No. 1 can be corrected by issue of a writ of mandamus.

6. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondents Nos.1 to 3 will entertain the representation made by the petitioners and proceed to deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of relevant law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the persons likely to be adversely affected. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A-533/L Order accordingly.