2011 PLP 1623 (YLR)
SIKANDAR DADA and another — Petitioners Versus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, SINDH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1623 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Gulzar Ahmed and Arshad Siraj Memon, JJ |
| Parties | SIKANDAR DADA and another — Petitioners Versus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, SINDH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1623 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1623 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Gulzar Ahmed and Arshad Siraj Memon, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1623 (YLR) (SIKANDAR DADA and another — Petitioners Versus ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, SINDH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jam Asif Mehmood for Petitioner No.1.
- Saim Hashmi for Petitioner No.2.
- Abdul Maroof for Respondent No.2 along with S.M. Yahya.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(xxxii), 11, 17 & 18
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199
Constitutional petition
Complaint against pollution
Petitioner had stated that he could not be made personally liable for the acts of a corporate body and that issuances of bailable warrants against the petitioner was not in accordance with law
Petitioner had prayed that bailable warrants issued be quashed
Petition was disposed of ordering that bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were recalled
Petitioner would appear before the Tribunal when the matter would be fixed before the Tribunal and he could make appropriate application for dropping of the proceedings against him, upon which the Tribunal would pass order in accordance with law. Shafi Muhammad Memon, A.A.-G. Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui has filed counter affidavit to the petition, copy of which has been supplied to the Counsel for the petitioner in Court today. The counsel for the petitioner No.1 states that the word 'person' has been defined in clause (xxxii) of section 2 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act includes a corporate body and that section 18 of the same Act provides for punishment of offences committed by corporate bodies under the Act. He states that the legal status of the petitioner No.1 as Chairman/Chief Executive of the petitioner No.2 is distinct and they are also distinct persons in the law having their own individual rights and obligations and that any violation of one cannot be enforced upon the other. He states that petitioner No.1 cannot be made personally liable for the acts of petitioner No.2 which is a corporate body and that issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner No. 1 was not in accordance with law. He has prayed that bailable warrants issued by respondent No.1 be quashed. The counsel for the respondent No.3 states that petitioner No.1 has a remedy of making of an application before the respondent No.1 for his acquittal and the Tribunal can pass appropriate order in this regard if the petitioner No.1 is able to satisfy the Tribunal that he is not liable to be proceeded in the complaint filed by the respondent No.3. Consequently, we dispose of the petition by ordering that while bailable warrants against the petitioner No.1 are recalled, the petitioner No.1 will appear before the Tribunal on 26-3-2010 when the matter is stated to be fixed before it and will also be represented by a Counsel and may make appropriate application for dropping of the proceedings against petitioner No.1 upon which the Tribunal will pass order in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner No.2 states that the petitioner No.2 has serious reservation regarding the very maintainability of the complaint filed with the respondent No.1 and that he will file a separate petition challenging the same. He may file a separate petition in accordance with law. The listed application is also disposed of. H.B.T./S-71/K Order accordingly.