2011 PLP 1168 (CLD)

On 15-6-2010 learned counsel for the respondent filed written statement on his behalf wherein it was stated that Unit No. 1 of the respondent is lying closed for the last four years and Unit No. 2 since 17-3-2010. In support of the said averment he attached Certificate of Messrs Walid Junaid Industries issued by its Managing Partner that their factory at 16 km Lahore Sheikhupura Road is not in operation since 17-3-2010. Learned DDPP was directed to get the site in question inspected for verifying the written statement and file report on 19-7-2010. On that date learned DDPP prayed for more time to file the requisite report. The complaint was then adjourned for this purpose to 23-9-2010, 28-10-2010, 23-11-2010 and 8-12-2010 when the complainant department was directed to get the site inspected for verifying whether the respondent units are closed permanently or temporarily. The complainant department was granted 15 days time for filing the requisite report and the complaint was adjourned to 5-1-2011. Learned ADPP has filed current status report of "Walid Junnaid Steel Furnace, Sheikhupura" wherein it is stated that the mill is not in operation as its main gate is locked. There is no Chowkidar/watchman. The physical condition of the mill shows that it might be closed for one year. It was also discovered that the mill is not only Bank defaulter but also WAPDA defaults, and Market defaulter. In such circumstances the complaint cannot proceed any further and is hereby dismissed. (Sd)/- (Sd)/- Khawaja Muhammad Afzal Ch. Khalil (Chairperson) (Member Tech.) I respectfully do not agree with the order dated 7-2-2011 passed by worthy Chairperson vide which complaint was dismissed. My finding are as follows: The instant complaint filed by Punjab EPA against the respondent alledging therein that respondent unit is creating Environmental pollution by generating dust and smoke in the atmosphere. The site Inspection conducted by one Inspector Abdul Sattar confirms the Environmental pollution emitting through respondent Unit polluting Air and Water. At the time of inspection, the respondent unit was discharging extreme dense smoke of 03-04 Rengleman opacity. The smoke was due to burning of deposition residual material. Moreover, no device has been installed by the respondent owner to control the air pollution. The Environmental protection order was issued on 29-10-2008 directing therein to adopt remedial measures. The respondent appeared through council on 6-5-2010 to whom the copy of complaint was handed over, The reply filed on 15-6-2010 by the council with the statement that respondent unit is closed and not operational since 17-3-2010. To verify the statement of council, site inspection was directed to be conducted. The report filed on 7-2-2011 reveals that mill is not in operation as its main gate, is closed. It is also disclosed through S.I.R. that owner/mill is Bank defaulter/Wapda defaulter. In my view although the mill is closed but offence complained, alledgedly committed by the respondent. pollutant in past, cannot be ignored by mere, closure of unit. The owner respondent pollutant allegedly has committed an offence under section 11 of PEP Act 1997 in past. Therefore, he must be summoned according to law by issuing Bailable/non-Bailable warrant of arrest. By dismissing the complaint due to closure of unit means to encourage the respondent/pollutant and such like other person to spread pollution with their own free will. Therefore, respondent/pollutant may be summoned to commence trial according to law to reach at just and proper decision. (Sd)/- Ms. Gulzar Butt (Member Legal) H.B.T./5/ET Order accordingly.