2018 PLP 895 (CLD)
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PUNJAB through Assistant Director — Complainant Versus Messrs PAK PACKAGES through Owner/Chief Executive — Respondent
| Citation | 2018 PLP 895 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Environmental Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PUNJAB through Assistant Director — Complainant Versus Messrs PAK PACKAGES through Owner/Chief Executive — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 895 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 895 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Environmental Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 895 (CLD) (DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PUNJAB through Assistant Director — Complainant Versus Messrs PAK PACKAGES through Owner/Chief Executive — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 21(3)(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 265-K---Power of court to acquit accused at any stage---Compliance with directions of Provincial Environmental Protection Agency ('Agency') given in Environmental Protection Order ("EPO")---In the year 2012, the industrial plant in question was found to be violating certain provisions of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, and in such regard an 'EPO' was also issued by the Agency directing the Chief Executive of the industrial plant (respondent) to comply with the directions therein---Subsequently the concerned District Officer (Environment) wrote a Compliance Status Report of EPO and informed the Deputy Director (L&E) that the EPO had been complied with---Agency went in hibernation for three years, whereafter the Deputy Director (LAB) wrote a letter to the respondent that the Agency's lab team visited the unit on 24-04-2015 to monitor the waste water and the test analysis report was forwarded---Sampling date was mentioned as 24-4-2015---Respondent contended that since the violations of the EPO was complied with in 2012 therefore the Agency with mala fide intention, to keep the issue alive, made a lab report after 3 years and presented present complaint in the year 2017---Validity---Violation of Environmental laws as mentioned in the EPO issued on 2012 were complied with---Only remedy for the Department was to drop the proceedings at that time and if the unit of the respondent was again found in violation of Environmental laws then fresh legal actions could have been initiated against him in accordance with provisions of law---No worthy material was found on record to even frame a charge against the respondent for the present complaint---Environmental Tribunal allowed the application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. and acquitted the respondent from the charge, and directed that if the department wanted to proceed against the respondent it may conduct fresh site inspection report and if there were violations of any Environmental laws, it may issue fresh EPO and then submit a complaint before the Tribunal.
- Muhammad Yasin Hatif for Respondent.
- 5. After this the EPA went in hibernation and after three years the Deputy Director (LAB) wrote a letter to the owner of the unit that EPA lab team visited the unit on 24.04.2015 to monitor the waste water and the test analysis report was forwarded. The sampling date was 24.04.2015. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the violations of the EPO was complied with in 2012 therefore the Department with mala fide intention in sheer abuse of the authority, to keep the issue alive, made a lab report after 3 years and after the lab report sent this complaint in 2017. This Tribunal endorsed the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent. The violation of Environmental Laws as mentioned in the EPO issued on 2012 were complied with. The only remedy for the Department was to drop the proceedings at that time and if the unit of the respondent found in violation of Environmental Laws fresh legal actions could have been initiated against the respondent in accordance with provisions of law. Assistant Director (Legal) is unable to answer satisfactorily any of these quarries of this Tribunal. At present the EPO was complied with way back in 2012 and it is the case of the EPA itself. There is no worth material even to frame a charge in this complaint what to say possibility of conviction therefore this Tribunal allow the application under section 265-K of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898) and acquit the accused Shafiq-ur-Rehman from the charge. If Department wants to proceed against the respondent they may conduct fresh SIR and if there are violations of any Environmental Laws found in the inspection Department may issue fresh EPO and then further submits a complaint before this Tribunal. The EPO issued on 03.07.2012 after its compliance is a close transaction. Consigned.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 21(3)(a)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 265-K
Power of court to acquit accused at any stage
Compliance with directions of Provincial Environmental Protection Agency ('Agency') given in Environmental Protection Order ("EPO")
In the year 2012, the industrial plant in question was found to be violating certain provisions of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, and in such regard an 'EPO' was also issued by the Agency directing the Chief Executive of the industrial plant (respondent) to comply with the directions therein
Subsequently the concerned District Officer (Environment) wrote a Compliance Status Report of EPO and informed the Deputy Director (L&E) that the EPO had been complied with
Agency went in hibernation for three years, whereafter the Deputy Director (LAB) wrote a letter to the respondent that the Agency's lab team visited the unit on 24-04-2015 to monitor the waste water and the test analysis report was forwarded
Sampling date was mentioned as 24-4-2015
Respondent contended that since the violations of the EPO was complied with in 2012 therefore the Agency with mala fide intention, to keep the issue alive, made a lab report after 3 years and presented present complaint in the year 2017
Violation of Environmental laws as mentioned in the EPO issued on 2012 were complied with
Only remedy for the Department was to drop the proceedings at that time and if the unit of the respondent was again found in violation of Environmental laws then fresh legal actions could have been initiated against him in accordance with provisions of law
No worthy material was found on record to even frame a charge against the respondent for the present complaint
Environmental Tribunal allowed the application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. and acquitted the respondent from the charge, and directed that if the department wanted to proceed against the respondent it may conduct fresh site inspection report and if there were violations of any Environmental laws, it may issue fresh EPO and then submit a complaint before the Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
I have heard Mian Ijaz Majeed Assistant Director (Legal) EPA and learned Law Officer. Brief facts of the case are that site inspection of unit was made on 22.05.2012 and the Inspector found the following violations: Discharge of untreated sewage. Emission of smoke, pollutant gases (Gusset Printing Process). Construction Phase NOC has been obtained but NOC for operational phase has not been taken obtained.
2. Notice of hearing was given on 22.05.2012 for 13.06.2012 that the unit had been found contravening the provisions of Act by following means: i. Discharge of untreated sewage ii. Emission of excessive smoke and pollutant gases. iii. Establishment of the unit in 2010 in violation of section 12 of the Act.
3. EPO dated 03.07.2012 was issued directing the respondent to comply the following directions within 30 days: i. Adopt remedial measures to treat wastewater in conformity with NEQS. it. Take necessary measures for controlling emission of smoke and pollutant gases in conformity with NEQS. iii. Take necessary measures for regularization of violation of section 12 regarding establishment of the unit without environmental approval.
4. At page 14 of the complaint there is a Compliance Status Report of EPO by District Officer (Environment) Lahore who wrote a letter 1261 dated 30.08.2012 to Deputy Director (L&E) that the EPO had been complied with. It was observed that the compliance level of wastewater/emission is in conformity with NEQS may be assessed by stack emission/waste water analysis through EPA. The Compliance Status Report is as follows; Directions in EPO Current Position on 25.08.2012 i. Adopt remedial measures to treat waste water in conformity with the NEQS i. Septic tank has been constructed in the unit for waste water. ii. Take necessary measures for Controlling emission of excessive smoke, particulate matter, gaseous wastes and noise in conformity with the NEQS ii. The emission meet the NEQS (report attached) iii. Take necessary measures to regularize the violation of section 12 of the Act ibid regarding commencing establishment of the Housing Society without obtaining environmental approval iii. The proponent has already obtained Environmental Approval vide No. DD, (EIA) / EPA / F-230(IEE)/ 2010 / Cir / 57 date 21.01.2011 (copy attached)
5. After this the EPA went in hibernation and after three years the Deputy Director (LAB) wrote a letter to the owner of the unit that EPA lab team visited the unit on 24.04.2015 to monitor the waste water and the test analysis report was forwarded. The sampling date was 24.04.2015. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that since the violations of the EPO was complied with in 2012 therefore the Department with mala fide intention in sheer abuse of the authority, to keep the issue alive, made a lab report after 3 years and after the lab report sent this complaint in 2017. This Tribunal endorsed the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent. The violation of Environmental Laws as mentioned in the EPO issued on 2012 were complied with. The only remedy for the Department was to drop the proceedings at that time and if the unit of the respondent found in violation of Environmental Laws fresh legal actions could have been initiated against the respondent in accordance with provisions of law. Assistant Director (Legal) is unable to answer satisfactorily any of these quarries of this Tribunal. At present the EPO was complied with way back in 2012 and it is the case of the EPA itself. There is no worth material even to frame a charge in this complaint what to say possibility of conviction therefore this Tribunal allow the application under section 265-K of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act V of 1898) and acquit the accused Shafiq-ur-Rehman from the charge. If Department wants to proceed against the respondent they may conduct fresh SIR and if there are violations of any Environmental Laws found in the inspection Department may issue fresh EPO and then further submits a complaint before this Tribunal. The EPO issued on 03.07.2012 after its compliance is a close transaction. Consigned. MWA/1/PET Order accordingly.