2015 PLP 772 (CLD)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.

The petitioner seeks following reliefs from this Court:- (i) Declare that impugned decision on EIA bearing Ref No.EPA/2014/05/27/EIA/09 dated 5th August, 2014 (Annexure P/1) is illegal, mala fide, unconstitutional, contumacious, biased, non-speaking and in sheer violation of Act, 1997, regulations 2000 and Order dated 29th April, 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Suit No.538 of 2014. (ii) Set aside the impugned decision on EIA bearing Ref No.EPA/2014/06/27/EIA/09 dated 5th August, 2014 (Annexure P/1). (iii) Grant Permanent Injunction restraining the respondents Nos.2 and 3 directly or indirectly, through their officers, subordinates, employees or contractors from carrying out any construction work on basis of the said illegally procured impugned decision on EIA dated 5th August, 2014.

2. Briefly, the respondent No.2 after submitting Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) launched a project comprising, a flyover and underpasses known as "Grade Separated Traffic Improvement Plan" starting from Park Tower Intersection till A.T. Naqvi Roundabout (hereafter referred to as "said Project"). The respondent No.3 was financing the said Project, as inter alia it was to provide access to its Project known as Bahria Icon Tower a 68 storey building having its own shopping mall, hotel, cinemas and other facilities. The grievance of the petitioner was that since this project involved major construction work to be carried out along with the stated roads which ultimately could affect the traffic influx on 26th street, therefore, before undertaking a project of such nature respondent No.2/KMC ought to have submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (DA) so that the grievances and concerns of the petitioner DHA and others could be heard and redressed. The petitioner consequently filed a Suit bearing No.538 of 2014 on the Original Side of this Court with several prayers out of which prayer clauses "a" and "b" are relevant to understand the exact nature of controversy and are reproduced hereunder:- (a) Declare that the plaintiff authority and its residents are entitled for participation in public hearing mandatorily required to be conducted before approval of the impugned project under the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, 1997. (b) Declare that failure of the respondents Nos.5 and 7 to submit Environmental Impact Assessment and obtain its approval before starting execution of the impugned project is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, mala fide, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. Along with suit an application viz. C.M.A. No.4314 of 20l4 seeking interim relief was also moved which was heard and was decided vide order dated 29-4-2014 directing the proponent of the "said project" i.e. KMC to stop all construction in relation to or touching upon the "said project" till an EIA is approved by the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow:- "

28. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.4314 of 2011 is allowed in terms that it is ordered that all construction of in relation to or touching upon the Project is restrained and stopped forthwith. However, nothing in this order shall prevent KMC, as proponent, from submitting an EIA for consideration by the Agency. If such an EIA is submitted it must be accorded top priority. The agency must deal with the EIA while acting strictly in accordance with law and adhering to the provision of the 1997 Act and the 2000 Regulations including in particular, as identified and explained herein above. If after such consideration, the EIA is approved (whether with or without conditions) KMC shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application in this suit for recall and vacation of the order made above. Such application must be listed immediately and on priority basis and the office is directed to act accordingly. If the EIA submitted by KMC is rejected it will of course be entitled to its remedies in accordance with law." It appears that in consequent to such directions the respondent No.2 submitted an EIA for consideration of the respondent No.1 who after inviting the objection and hearing the stakeholders vide its decision dated 30-6-2010 accorded its approval. The petitioner being aggrieved has impugned the grant of EIA through instant petition.

3. Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that through order dated 29-4-2014 the respondents were directed to submit EIA and consequently KMC applied for EIA on 3-5-2014 and on 4-7-2014 Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter referred to as "Agency") through public notice published in Daily Dawn invited objections and fixed public hearing of the project on 22-7-2014 in the committee room of KMC Building, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi. The petitioner filed its detailed objections and the Agency without considering the objections on 5-8-2014 approved EIA. Per counsel looking, at the magnanimity of the project and its far reaching effect approval of EIA in just three months reflects that no serious efforts were made by the Agency to address or redress the issues raised by the petitioners. It was contended that various issues including the traffic congestion on 26th street as a consequence of "said Project" raised by the petitioner were not addressed by the Agency in their impugned decision. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the impugned decision of the Agency is in violation of Regulation 10 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and IEA) Regulations, 2000 (hereafter referred to as "Regulations 2000") and section 31 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2014") which provides for meaningful public hearing, as the concern/issues raised by the petitioner were neither collated, tabulated nor accepted or rejected in the impugned order. Per counsel, the provisions of section 18 of the Act of 2014 require strategic environmental impact study which was not conducted before submission of EIA. Per counsel, it is mandated by section 31 that the objections received in public participation are duly considered accepted/rejected while reviewing EIA which was violated by the Agency.

4. While projecting primary objection of the D.H.A., Mr. Abid Zuberi contended that on account of flyover the influx of the traffic will increase many times, as the commuters in order to use this flyover would come through E-junction leading towards Shahrah-e-Firdousi which would increase traffic many a times and would cause serious traffic congestion near 26th street.

5. Mr. Farooq H. Naek, learned counsel for the KMC, while inviting our attention to para '8' of the petition, has contended that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the flux of thoroughfare traffic will be diverted to the residential area, which would cause serious noise and air pollution in the residential area and traffic congestion on E-intersection leading to 26th street which is totally presumptive and requires evidence. Mr. Naek further contended that Clifton area has been declared as high density area and number of high rise buildings are being constructed including Bahria Icon Tower 68 storey by the respondent No.3 and to resolve the traffic issue the "said project" was launched which would not benefit only Bahria Icon Tower but would facilitate commuter and vehicular movement in the entire area. It was further contended that the "said project" is one way and would facilitate the traffic from E-intersection till after the Abdullah Shah Ghazi Shrine whereas the underpasses would further facilitate the traffic. Mr. Naek further while inviting our attention to para-15 of the petition contends that the petitioner itself has admitted the participation in public hearing after filing detailed objections and from perusal of the petition it appears that the petitioner is claiming that EIA is not compliant of the definition as appears in section 12 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1997"). Per counsel since the Act 1997 is no more in the field, therefore, the petition itself is incompetent. Mr. Naek further contended that before 18th amendment Environmental pollution and ecology was a federal subject and appeared as Item-24 of the concurrent legislative list which, after 18th amendment stood abolished and therefore, the environment pollution has become a provincial subject and therefore, Act of 1997 and Regulations of 2000 could not be applied to the provinces. Mr. Naek further contended that the Agency while according approval of EIA has incorporated number of conditions which were necessary to eliminate the environmental hazard the non-observance whereof would entitle the Agency to revoke the EIA approval, therefore, the concern of the petitioner is misplaced. It was next contended that though section 18(1) of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 specifies strategic environmental assessment however, subsection (3) thereof lays down the provisions of subsection (1) shall apply to such categories of policies programs and plans and in such manner as prescribed and since till date neither the categories nor policies, plans or programs have been specified, therefore, proviso is inapplicable. Mr. Naek lastly contended that section 24-A of the General Clauses Act is not applicable in case where the Agency grants EIA but would apply in case where it refuses to grant EIA. Reliance was placed on Article 175-A(12) and its first and second proviso.

6. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan representing Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited contended that Bahria Town (Pvt.) Limited had undertaken the construction of high-rise building known as Bahria Icon Tower somewhere in the year 2010 and before undertaking the construction of Bahria Icon Tower it had submitted EIA and the Agency while granting permission vide Clause X had required Bahria Town (Pvt.) Ltd. to conduct a traffic study and traffic management plan to facilitate the commuters and vehicular movement, in and around Icon Tower. Per counsel instead of adopting limited and short term measure. Bahria caused a detailed traffic study and traffic management plan through leading expert not only towards Bahria Icon Tower but in or around where severe traffic problem was expected. In this background and to comply with the condition X of the EIA Bahria offered to financially assist KMC to undertake the "said project". Counsel while denying the argument that the said project would cause serious noise and air pollution in the residential area or traffic congestion on 26th Street or E-intersection contended that the traffic flowing from Park Towers towards 26th street would remain on three lanes as existed before while the traffic coming from DHA/26th Street/E-intersection towards Park Tower would use the one way flyover. Per counsel the flyover would facilitate the traffic from DHA/26th street/E junction and would not result in choking traffic. Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan contended that the said project which involves the cost of about Rs.1.15 billion commenced after the Agency has granted IEE on 18-3-2014 and more than 40% of the work has already stands executed. Per counsel an additional amount of Rs.70 crore was spent to secure the shrine of Abdullah Shah Ghazi under Independent Management Consultant under an order of this Court passed in Const. Petition No. ID-4604/2014. While dilating the procedure adopted by the Agency before according its approval in respect of EIA, it was contended that KMC submitted EIA to the Agency which after its examination invited stakeholders for public hearing through public notices published in newspapers, whereafter comments were received from various stakeholders followed by a public hearing. The Agency thereafter sought comments from KMC who submitted parawise response to the comments whereafter the Agency referred the CIA, comments and response to the comments to expert appointed under section 7(e) of the Act, 2014, followed by a meeting of Expert Committee to finalize the matter and thereafter impugned decision of EIA was issued by the Agency, subject to the conditions enumerated therein. Responding to the objection raised by Mr. Abid S. Zuberi as to the violation of sections 17 and 31, of the Act 2014 as well as Regulation 10 of the Regulation 2000. Mr. Khalid contended that full opportunity was provided to all stakeholders to raise objections and they were also granted public hearing and the proponent was confronted with those objections which were duly responded and thereafter all material was considered by the leading experts in the field of environment and after such lengthy exercise Agency granted its approval. Per counsel it was a technical issue where the concerns of the Agency was whether EIA for the project should be refused, re-submitted or granted and if so subject to what condition, therefore full compliance of section 17(2)(b) of the Act 2014 was made. Per counsel there was no requirement to individually inform each agency or individual about the fate of its specific comments and or reasons for its upholding or rejection therefore, the objection of Mr. Abid that DHA should have been informed about the fate of their objections is misconceived. Mr. Khalid further contended that even section 31(3) of the Act, 2014 did not require that reasons for rejection of objection be spelled out in the decision itself. All what is required was that decision or action should be communicated. As to the submission of Strategic Environmental Assessment, per counsel the provision is inapplicable to the case in hand as this provision has been introduced through Act 2014 for the first time and it requires the development authorities such as KMC, DHA. Cantonment Board to start preparing strategic environment assessment on a macro level for areas and not for a single project. Additionally, it would have prospective effects and requires planning authorities to process its compliance. It was therefore, prayed that EIA was lawfully granted by the Agency after fulfilling all statutory requirement and therefore, the petition being misconceived be dismissed.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

8. Since the order of the learned Single Judge on the Original Side dated 29-4-2014 directing the proponent of the project i.e. KMC to file EIA as of today is in the field as an appeal against the said order was dismissed as infructuous, therefore, we without entertaining the argument of Mr. Naek that the project required IEE and not EIA, would proceed to decide as to whether the EIA granted by the Agency was in accordance with the legal requirement.

9. As to the application of law, though in the memo of petition the petitioner in several paragraphs has asserted the non-compliance of Act, 1997 and Mr. Naek while inviting our attention to these paragraph has sought dismissal of the petition on the ground that since Act 1997 is no more in the field therefore, the petition itself is misconceived. However. during the arguments Mr. Abid has conceded that since the petitioners had filed EIA on 2-5-2014, therefore, the law applicable as rightly pointed out by Mr. Naek would be Act, 2014 which came into force on 20-3-2014 and that he would argue his case within the parameters of Act 2014, therefore, in our opinion at the most it could be a case of quoting wrong law which of course is of no consequence as proper application of law is the function of the Court. Mr. Naek next had invited our attention to various provisions of Act, 2014 such as Clauses XLIV and XLV of section 2 of Act, 2014 which define regulations and rules respectively as "made under this Act i.e. Act of 2014 and has asserted that since neither the regulations nor rules have been framed under the Act 2014 therefore, the argument of Mr. Abid pleading violation of Regulation 10 of 2000 was misconceived. However, during arguments Mr. Naek himself has pointed out Sub-Article (6) of Article 270-AA which provides:- "Notwithstanding omission of the concurrent Legislative List by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 all laws with respect to any of the matters eminerated in the said List (including Ordinances, Orders, Rules, by-laws, Regulations and Notifications and other legal instruments having the force of law) in force in Pakistan or any part thereof or having extra territorial operation, immediately before the commencement of the Constitution (Eighteenth amendment) Act, 2010, shall continue to remain in force until altered, repealed or amended by the competent authority".

10. Perusal of above reproduced Sub-Article would reveal that even after the omission of the concurrent legislative list all Ordinances, orders, rules, bye-laws, regulations and notifications and other legal instruments having force of law made in respect of any matter enumerated in the said list shall continue to remain in force until altered repealed or amended by the competent authority and since Regulations 2000 admittedly have neither been altered nor repealed or amended therefore, in our opinion the same would continue to remain in force until and unless regulations and rules are framed under the Act of 2014. The law applicable, therefore, in our opinion is Act of 2014 and Regulation 2000.

11. Coming to the exact nature of project, perusal of the layout plan as well as EIA submitted by the proponent reflect that the said project comprises of two independent units i.e. flyover towards A. T. Naqvi Chowk and underpasses for entry/exit. The EIA gives the description of the said project as follows:- (i) Flyover along 26th Street/Shahrah-e-Firdousi providing for uninterrupted traffic movements along Shahrah-e-Firdausi from DHA/Khayaban-e-Ittehad side towards A.T. Naqvi Chowk (Intersection) and onwards to Bin Qasim Park along with a direct access to the Bahria Town Icon Tower by means of an exclusive down ramp, improved traffic management at A.T. Naqvi Chowk under the above Flyover. (ii) Underpasses for entry exit movements to from Bahria Town Icon Tower and Clifton Funland without any interruption to the through movements on main Shahrah-e-Firdausi, Interchange between Shahrah-e-Iran and Shahrah-e-Firdausi near Park Towers Intersection leading to 2-Talwar Intersection. Other at-grade improvements for better traffic management in the entire area, and Provision of a number of grade separated pedestrian crossing at important locations. The petitioner has not objected so far as the construction of underpasses are concern and as to the flyover the thrust of the submission was that it would create congestion on 26th Street leading to E-Junction and would cause sound and air pollution at the residential area of DHA and as picked up by us from the comments of DHA Para 4.2.2 onwards reproduced below:- "4.2.2. The project is designed for 3 X lanes carriageway in both directions, which will be reducing to 2X lanes the moment it enters in DHA. Hence the entire traffic which will not only funnel up at E-Street junction but will have increased waiting time and extra ordinary Que lengths ranging between 67 to 93 meters. This shall result into serious Environmental Social hazards because of increase in noise level, excessive gas emissions, enhanced pollution level, more requirement of policing and other maintenance hazards. 4.2.3. The flyover itself will act as a main attraction for traffic coming from the city there by tremendously increasing the volume and congestion in DHA generally and 26th Street in particular 26th Street is at LOS "D"/"E" which will reduce in LOS "F". 4.2.4. Due to the increase in speed of the traffic from Bilawal Chowk to A.T. Naqvi Chowk because of the flyover the congestion from other areas will be shifted into DHA. The concern of the DHA as per record was duly communicated to the proponent of the project in order to obtain their comments and the proponent while denying the assertions/concern of the DHA, as reproduced above in response asserted that the concern of the DHA is just misconceived assumptions. It was asserted that the flyover would carry traffic moving out of the DHA area and going towards the city/Mai Kolachi Road.

12. Considering the concern of DNA in the context that after the Clifton area has been declared high density zone number of high rise projects are coming up such as the respondent No.3's project Bahria Icon Tower of 68 storeys. Come 3 near Bar-B-Q tonight comprising of four towers with 35 storey. Riveria 70 opposite Bahria Town Icon Tower comprising of 35 storey mega projects in Phase-8, DHA including by Emaar. Ovation Tower (42 storey) etc. which would not only generate huge traffic flow but of course would cause related problems, which would require traffic management plan on a higher scale as well as mitigation measures on small scale such as flyovers to facilitate traffic by passing rushy area or busy crossings. The petitioner themselves in their comments have admitted that the flyover would cause increase in traffic speed and consequently congestion from other areas would be shifted into DHA. Even the Agency after considering the concern has recommended a solution by way of flyover at Khayaban-e-Shamsheer. In our opinion even if this project is not allowed to be constructed still on account of 68 storey residential-cum-commercial building and the other high rise buildings in the offing, the traffic at Clifton would increase many a times and of course would cause severe traffic problems but to say that the construction of this project would increase traffic volume does not appeal to the logic. Besides, to say that the flyover would attract vehicular traffic on account of increase in traffic speed from E-Junction to Bilawal Chowk and for this reason the traffic load would increase and or the flyover would reduce traffic load being factual controversies and that too based on probabilities and therefore, neither these controversies could be decided by us while exercising writ jurisdiction nor any finding of fact could be given thereon. Even otherwise, issue before us is the non-observance of statutory provision of Act 2014 and Regulation 2000 by the Agency while approving EIA. However, what need to be recorded is that the concern of the DHA on this issue were duly considered by the Agency by calling comments from the proponent in accordance with law and, thereafter, by imposing number of conditions while approving EIA.

13. Now we would examine as to whether the Agency has approved EIA while violating Regulation 10 of 2000, sections 17, 18 and 31 of the Act of 2014 as pleaded by Mr. Zuberi Regulation 10 of 2000 as well as sections 17 and 31 of the Act of 2014 all provide for public participation. Perusal of Regulations 9 and 10 of 2000 in juxtaposition would reflect that alter filing of EIA the Agency would complete its scrutiny within 19 working days and in case it is found complete in all respect for the purposes of initiation of review process would cause a publication in any English or Urdu national newspapers and in a local newspaper having general circulation in the area affected by the project, a public notice mentioning the type of project, its exact location, the name and address of the proponent and the places at which the EIA of the project can be accessed. The publication to also mention date, time and place for public hearing of any comments on the project or its EIA which shall not be earlier than 30 days from the date of publication of the notice. The comments received by the Agency from the public or any Government Agency shall be collated: tabulated and duly considered by it before decision on the EIA whereas Regulation 12 provides that on completion of the review, the decision of the Federal Agency shall be communicated to the proponent in the form prescribed in Schedule VI. Likewise, section 17(3) of the Act of 2014 provides that every environmental impact assessment shall be carried out with public participation and after full disclosure of the particulars of the project. In the same manner section 31 of the Act of 2014 provides that the Agency shall cause relevant details of any proposed project regarding which an environmental impact assessment has been received to be published along with an invitation to the public to furnish their comments thereon within specified period and the Agency in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed shall hold public hearing to receive additional comments and/or oral submission. It further provides that all comments received by the Agency and/or oral submission shall be duly considered by the Agency while reviewing environmental impact assessment or strategic impact assessment and the decision or action taken thereon shall be communicated to the persons who have furnished said comments.

14. There is no denial of the fact that the EIA was submitted by the KMC on 2-5-2014 and after initial review a public notice to conduct public hearing as well as inviting comments from the general public and stakeholders regarding construction of the said project was duly published in daily Dawn and Jang on 4-7-2014. Public notice does provide the detail of the project, its location name of the proponent and web address where the project could be accessed. It also provided date, time and place for public hearing. It also appears to be an admitted position that a public hearing was conducted wherein DHA and other stakeholders such as Mst. Yasmin Lari, all Hindu rights organization, DHA Residents, Sheri and HRPC had filed their comments which were forwarded by the Agency to the proponent of the project i.e. KMC for their response. KMC responded to the comments of all stakeholder thereafter the Agency forwarded the comments and response of the proponent to the experts followed by a meeting and thereafter the Agency on 5-8-2014 approved EIA of course subject to various conditions mentioned therein. In our opinion the process adopted by the Agency appears to be in line of scheme provided under the law.

15. As to the contention of Mr. Zuberi that the objections filed on behalf of the DHA should have been collated, tabulated duly considered, accepted or rejected through a speaking order. Perusal of the record reflects that the comments received through public participation were duly tabulated, examined and response of the proponent was sought therefore, the contention to that extent appears to be misconceived. As to second portion of the contention, there is nothing on record to show that the comments were either accepted or rejected through a speaking order. To examine this portion of the argument, minute perusal of Regulation 2000 as well as Act of 2014 would reflect that there is no provision in either which provides for filing of objections to the EIA or an order thereon which of course presupposes reasoning on the contrary it provides for filing of comments and thereafter a decision. For instance Regulation 10(2) provides that public notice issued under sub-regulation (1) shall fix a date, time and place for public hearing of any comments on the project or its EIA. Likewise, sub-regulation (5) provides that all comments received by the Federal Agency from the public or any Government Agency shall be collated. tabulated and duly considered by it before decision on the EIA, even section 31(3) of Act 2014 provides that all comments received shall be duly considered by the Agency while reviewing EIA or SEA and the decision or action taken thereon shall be communicated to the persons who have furnished the said comments. On the other hand, Regulation 12 of 2000 provides that the decision of the Agency in case of an EIA shall be communicated to the proponent in form prescribed in Schedule VI, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "SCHEDULE VI [See Regulation 12] Decision on EIA (1) Name and address of Proponent

(2) Description of project

(3) Location of project

(4) Date of filing of EIA

(5) After careful review of the EIA, and all comments, thereon the Federation Agency has decided. (a) to accord its approval, subject to the following conditions; or (b) that the proponent should submit an EIA with the following modifications. or (c) to reject the project, being contrary to environmental objectives, for the following reasons: [Delete (a)/(b)/(c), whichever is inapplicable] Dated

Tracking No.

Director-General Federal Agency (with official stamp seal)" Perusal of the form provided for the decision of an EIA negate the contention of Mr. Zuberi that the Agency ought to have accepted or rejected the objection of the petitioner through speaking order. In fact the law does not impose the responsibility of adjudication of grievances of stakeholder while approving EIA, however, law provides for reasoning only when the Agency after examining the EIA rejects the project being contrary to the environmental objectives and in case where EIA is granted law only provides that the approval shall specify the conditions subject to which it is accorded, and in the instant case approval specifies such condition on the basis whereof approval was accorded.

16. Coming to the last contention of Mr. Zuberi that no Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was conducted which was a prerequisite to the grant/approval of EIA. Section 18 of the Act 2014 provides for submission of Strategic Environmental Assessment and the term Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been defined in clause (l) to section 2 of Act 2014 as "an analysis of a proposed policy, legislation, plan or programme to determine whether the principles of sustainable development have been integrated therein and to identify its likely environmental effects and such components as required an initial environmental examination or environmental impact assessment."

17. Keeping in view the definition of SEA, it needs to be examine as to whether the proponent in this case was even required to submit SEA. The perusal of section 18 of the Act of 2014 reflects that the Strategic Environmental Assessment is to be submitted by the provincial agencies, departments, authorities, local councils and local authorities, responsible for formulating the policies, legislations, plans and programmes which may cause any environmental impact in the province of Sindh. The law provides that such authorities before formulating any such legislation, plan and program which may cause any environmental impact would submit to the Agency a Strategic Environmental Assessment containing the details as described in section 18(1)(a) to (d). The Agency thereafter in consultation with the concerned government agency and advisory committee where established, review the strategic environment assessment and would prepare a report containing its comments and recommendation which would be forwarded to the initiating government Agency, authority, local council or local authority which would be duly considered be it and the competent authority before approval or otherwise of the proposed policy, legislation, plan or programme. However, the condition of forwarding a SEA to the Environmental Protection Agency is not applicable in respect of all policies, legislation, plans and programmes which may cause any environmental effect in the jurisdiction of province of Sindh but by virtue of subsection (3) of section 18 of Act, 2014 its application is restricted to such categories of policies, plans and programmes and in such manner as may be prescribed". The Act of 2014 itself does not prescribe the categories of policies, plans and programmes in respect whereof SEA is to be forwarded and since in the Act of 1997 there was no similar provision for submitting SEA, therefore, the Regulations of 2000 are also totally silent on this issue. However, term "prescribed" has been defined in clause (xli) to section 2 of Act of 2014 and means "prescribed by rules made under the Act of 2014" and since rules in terms of clause (xlv) of section 2 of Act, 2014 till date have not been framed, therefore, before applying the provisions of section 18 the Agency in terms of section 36 of the Act of 2014 has to notify the rules and/or has to specify the categories of policies, legislations, plans and programmes to which provisions of section 18 are to be made applicable. The discussion hereinabove leads us to the conclusion that the requirement of submitting Strategy Environmental Assessment (SEA) is to be undertaken by the Government agencies, departments, authorities, local councils before formulating prescribed categories of policies, plans and programmes for areas which may cause environmental impact in the Province of Sindh and not in respect of a project, which is being constructed in an area in respect whereof the Government has already made a Policy by declaring it a "High Density Zone".

18. In view of what has been discussed above, we find this petition meritless and dismiss the same. MH/P-29/Sindh Petition dismissed.