2019 PLP 710 (CLD)

This appeal is preferred against the Environment Protection order dated 26.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Director (R&I).

2. Brief facts of the case are that private complaint was received against the poultry farm through office of Deputy Commissioner Attock. Complaint was filed by one Liaqat Ali and other residents of locality against the establishment of the unit. Inspector Environment with other field staff visited the unit on 26.12.2017 and 18.03.2018 and prepared the SIR. The unit was established in 1994, 1995 and total area of the Poultry Farm is 2.5 Kanal. There are 4 open sheds with capacity of 7000 Chicks. Notices of hearing were given to appellant who attended the hearing and submitted written reply. The allegations of SIR were denied and the appellant shows willingness to abide by the direction if any, issued by the Environment Protection Agency and to take corrective measures.

3. Environmental Protection Order (EPO) was issued on 26.12.2018 with following allegations: You have established the poultry farm in residential area and not conducted the IEE/EIA of the project before built the subject poultry farm which is mandatory under section 12 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 and the IEE/EIA Regulation, 2000. Obnoxious/bad smell was coming from the alleged Poultry farm which was disturbing nearby locality. You have not submitted the environment plan for dead birds/poultry waste disposal. You have not built a proper pit for dead birds and no treatment carried out of the dead birds in pit. The subject Poultry Farm is situated beside residential area of Mohallah Nai Abadi Village Brotha. And appellant was directed to comply with the following directions: Take measures to regularize violation of section 12 of Act, ibid regarding establishment of Poultry Farm, without obtaining environmental approval from EPA, Punjab, Lahore. Take measures to control foul smell to the satisfaction of this Agency. Arrange for environmentally sound disposal of Poultry wastes and dead birds to the satisfaction of this Agency.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is admitted fact that the unit was established in 1994-1995. The directions for regularization of the unit under section 12 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012) is not applicable. Further submits that no time frame was given to appellant under section 16 of the PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012).

5. Learned Law Officer opposed the arguments and submits that impugned order is passed after adopting proper procedure.

6. Arguments heard from both sides and record perused.

7. It is observed from the SIR that the unit was established in 1994, 1995 prior to promulgation of PEP Act 1997 (amended 2012) therefore the direction to regularize of unit under section 12 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012) in EPO is meaningless. Section 16 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012) is reproduced as follow: "Where the Federal Agency or a Provincial Agency is satisfied that the discharge or emission of any effluent, waste, air pollutant or noise, or the disposal of waste, or the handling of hazardous substances, or any other at or omission is likely to occur, or is occurring, or has occurred. in violation of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations or of the conditions of a licence, and is likely to cause, or is causing or has caused an adverse environmental effect, the Federal Agency or, as the case may be, the Provincial Agency may, after giving the person responsible for such discharge, emission, disposal, handling, act or omission an opportunity of being heard, by order direct such person to take such measures that the Federal Agency or Provincial Agency may consider necessary within such period as may be specified in the order "

8. It is specifically mentioned in section 16 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012) that Provincial Environment Agency will direct the person responsible to take such measure within such period as specified in the order. No time frame is given in EPO in negation of section 16 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012). Environment Protection Agency is legally bound to follow section 16 of PEP Act, 1997 (amended 2012) and must have given time to appellant to take corrective measures. In view of these circumstances the appeal is hereby allowed. The D.G. Environment Protection Agency is directed to amend the DPO by adopting proper procedure and then proceed further. MH/5/PET Appeal allowed.