2019 PLP 498 (CLD)
RYK MILLS LIMITED through Authorized Officer — Appellant Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 498 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Environmental Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | RYK MILLS LIMITED through Authorized Officer — Appellant Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 498 (CLD)?
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 2019 PLP 498 (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: 2019 PLP 498 (CLD) (RYK MILLS LIMITED through Authorized Officer — Appellant Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5
Scope
Appeal was filed beyond period of limitation and condonation of delay was sought
Special law had provided different period of limitation for filing appeal
Provision of S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 was not attracted to appeal preferred beyond period of limitation provided in special law
Punjab Environmental Tribunal declined to condone delay
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Tribunal has heard the preliminary arguments. The appellant has challenged the EPO 29.05.2017 this appeal is filed on 12.09.2017. During course of arguments learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the EPO was received in mid June 2017. Submits that he has filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay. In the application in para 1 the appellant was submitted that the EPO was received on 05th July 2017 but the appeal was filed beyond 30 days. Section 22 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act 1997 (as amended in 2012) is reproduced as under;
22. Appeals to the Environmental Tribunal.
(1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of the Federal Agency or any Provincial Agency under any provision of this Act, and rules or regulations may prefer an appeal with the Environment Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the impugned order or direction to such person. (2) An appeal to the Environmental Tribunal shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed. It requires 30 days to file appeal before Tribunal against any directions and order or EPO.
2. The honourable apex Court while examining the provisions of section 29(2) and section 5 of the Limitation Act has held in "Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others" (2001 SCMR 286) that where the law under which proceedings had been initiated itself prescribed a period of limitation, then the benefit of section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1908, could not be availed unless the same had been made applicable as per section 29(2) of The Act. The operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded by section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Reliance is also placed on the case reported as Haji Ahmad v. Noor Muhammad (2004 SCMR 1630) and City District Government v. Muhammad Saeed Amin (2006 SCMR 676) "Abdul Rasheed and another v. Bank of Punjab through Branch Manager" (2004 CLD 800), "Protein and Fats International (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 2 others v. Capital Assets Leasing Corporation Limited through Manger" (2005 CLD 857), "Sikandar Hayat v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager" (2005 CLD 870) and "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 3 others" (2006 CLD 81) and it was held that since special law has provided different period of limitation for filing appeal in the Court than the ordinary law, therefore, section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the appeal preferred beyond period of limitation provided in that special law. In "Messrs S. Malik Traders and another v. Saudi Pak Leasing Company Ltd." (2009 CLD 171) it was also held that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be made applicable in an appeal, having been preferred under a special Statute.
3. The law is settled by the apex court. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable is therefore Dismissed and appeal is Dismissed being time barred. MH/2/PET Appeal dismissed.