2008 PLP 483 (SCMR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
• Shahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.6.
• Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court with Hassan Nawaz Tarar Director-General, L.D.A., Mian Ghulam Hussain, Director Law, L.D.A.,. Qazi Masood, Town Planner, L.D.A., Hafiz Moeen, Director Town Planning; L.D.A., Ch. M. Akram, Director Town Planning, L.D.A., M. Iftikhar, Deputy Director, Town Planning, L.D.A., Tariq Mahmood Deputy Director Town Planning, L.D.A., Shakeel Anjum Minhas, Deputy Director Town Planning, L.D.A,, Asad -uz-Zaman, Assistant Director Town Planning, L.D.A.
• Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab with Kamran Ali Khan, D.G. Environment Punjab, Muhammad Nawaz Manik, Deputy Director (Legal and Enforcement) E.P.A. Punjab and Syed Naseem-ur-Rehman, Deputy Director, Environment Impact Assessment Punjab, Lahore for the State.
• Aftab Gut, Advocate Supreme Court, Mian Abdul Qadoos, Advocate Supreme Court with Aamir Masood Nasir, accused, Dr. M. Rafique Zaki, accused, Rehmat Ali, accused, Dr. Umer Shafique, accused, Sabar Ali, accused: Rana Amjad Ali, accused, Dr. Muhammad Shafique, accused, Humayun Rasheed, accused on Court's notice (in kidney case).
• Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of Ahad Plaza), Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Naeem Ashraf Rana (on behalf of Salar Centre), Nasira Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of 383 Garden Block), Shehram Sarwar Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of Ahsan Tower), Shahzad Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court. (on behalf of Masood Hospital), Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of Kalama Tower), Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji Gul Rehman (on behalf of Rabi Centre) on Court's notice.
• KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---A grievance was raised at the very outset by Mr. Shahid Karim, Advocate Supreme, Court for Respondent No.6 in this petition saying that despite orders passed by this Court and despite submission of plan for sanctioning of the same relating to the building in question, neither the L.D.A. nor the Environmental Protection Agency had moved in the matter. He alleged a serious malice which had motivated the said two agencies in causing harm to the said builder.
• 2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court adds that the builder had submitted an application for the grant of NOC for the construction of its building vis-a-vis the environmental impact of the said project on 9-5-2007 and that nothing had been heard of the said application ever since. On our call, the Director-General Environmental Protection Agency of Punjab has entered appearance along with the record. It is established from the said record that the said application was filed on 9-5-2007. The first action which was then taken in the matter was a letter sent on 6-6-2007 to the District Officer (Environment) of Lahore asking him to submit a report in the said matter which report was submitted on 20-6-2007 certifying that the site was suitable for putting up the project in question. Despite this, nothing further was done in the matter. On our question we were informed by a Deputy Director of the said agency that he had asked the said builder to submit an affidavit regarding any litigation which may be pending with respect to the project in question. On our question, the D.G. has not been able to explain as to how, if at all, any litigation was pending would be a relevant factor for determining the environmental impact of the project in question when such a matter could well be valid consideration for the agency which had to give the final permission/sanction for the construction of the building in question. He, however, adds that since according to their assessment there was no environmental impediment in the construction of the said project, therefore, the needful would be done today. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder, however, insists that since all this had been done maliciously for extraneous reasons and with ulterior motives, therefore, the Director-General be directed to compensate the builder for immense financial and other loss in the matter. Suffice it to say that the person aggrieved has ample remedies for the redress of his grievance and he does not require our permission for so proceeding in the matter. Before we move on to some other aspect of the matter, we must express our surprise over the suitability of Kamran Ali Khan as the Director-General of EPA who is burdened with the responsibilities of looking after the environment of the whole Province. He is an officer from the Central Information Services who joined the service in the year 1973 and has been serving in different capacities relating to the subject of information. According to him, his qualification and the consequent exposure vis-a-vis the environment is that while studying law in the year 1971 in the University of Punjab, there was a subject of international law that he studied and according to him environment was one of the topics in the said subject of international law. As per him his further qualification and claim to the post in question was that during his career he happened to have lived in Tokyo, Bonn and in New Delhi. He further informs us that he had since retired and it was because of the said expertise that he had been re-employed and put on the job in question.
• 4. The Town Planner, namely, Qazi Masood submits, about the grievance of the respondent No.6, builder, that the only obstacle in the sanctioning of the plan of the said building was the excess of floor area ratio which should be 1:8 and which in this case as 1:12 and the submission of a fresh structural drawing with the change of the parking lot area. Mr. Shahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court submits, on instructions received by him in Court, that the builder would maintain 1:8 ratio as prescribed by rules and would not seek any relaxation in the said connection. He adds that the fresh structural drawings necessitated by the change in the parking lot area had since been submitted. The Town Planner, present in Court, submits that if this be so then the necessary sanction on production of the N.O.C. from the EPA, would be issued within three to four days.
• 5. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder has, in pursuance of our order, dated 5-7-2007, brought an amount of Rs.5,00,00,000 (Rupee five crores) in the form, of pay orders. The Assistant Registrar of this Court does not feel very comfortable in the matter of the safe custody of the said pay orders and requests that the said amount be, instead, paid in the form of cross-cheque. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder undertakes to do the needful by Monday, the 30th July, 2007. On this having been so done, a direction shall issue to the Commission: to carry out a detailed examination of this building, inter alia, to determine the structural stability thereof with respect to 7.3 floors of which this building now comprises and also to examine whether the said building is' in complete conformity with all other building regulations and laws. We shall expect the Commission to complete this entire exercise as early as possible and then submit a report to this Court for further action.
• 6. The Director-General L.D.A. has submitted a detailed report. A copy of the same has been handed over to Mr. Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for the builder who needs time to go through the same.
• 10. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder prays fora short adjournment to seek fresh instructions in the matter.
• 12. Mr. Jehangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court submits that the deficiency in the project in question had since been rectified. Let the builder approach the Commission and let the Commission then examine the whole matter and submit its report.
• 13. The Director-General, L.D.A. has submitted his report. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder prays for some time to examine the same. Re-list on 30-7-2007.
• 16. It was only through a telephonic message conveyed to the Registrar of this Court at Islamabad that it had been mentioned by the Commission that one Haji Gul Rehman and some other persons of Rabi Centre had misbehaved with the Members of the said Commission. The said Haji Gul Rehman is present with Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court.
• 18. In the matter of inspection of the building, Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court submits that he shall approach the Commission seeking appointment from them for the purpose. Haji Gul Rehman also undertakes to submit apologies to the Members of the Commission in the matter of the above mentioned incident.
• 20. All the accused persons under notice are present except Dr. Sarfraz Ahmed, The D.I.-G., present in Court, submits that according to their information and report this Dr. Sarfraz Ahmed had left the country in order to defeat the process of law issued against him and that he was present in U.K. Mian Abdul Qadoos, Advocate Supreme Court, however, appears on his behalf; submits that Dr. Sarfraz Ahmed was closely related to him and undertakes to ensure the appearance of the said Dr. Sarfraz Ahmed before this Court on 6-8-2007.
• 21. In view of this commitment made by Mian Abdul Qadoos, Advocate Supreme Court the D.I.-G., present in Court, is directed to suspend further coercive action for the arrest of the said accused and for his deportation to Pakistan.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree