' 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 assessm ent 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.
3. We can only express our surprise and displeasure over the selection of the incumbent of such important office and expect that the concerned authorities will realize their responsibilities towards the people and do what is required by law to be done.
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.
Salar Centre (13-Babar Block, New Garden Town, Lahore)
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 Commissions 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.
Ahad Plaza (102-103, Garden Block, New Garden Town,Kalma Chowk, Ferozpur Road, Lahore)
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.
7. Re-list on 30-7-2007.
Ahsan Tower (Plot No,43-A, Block-N, Industrial Gulberg-II, Lahore)
8. Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman, the learned Legal Advisor for the L.D.A. Submits that demolition of the building in question was in progress.
9. Re-list after one month.
83 Garden Block (Property No,83, Garden Block, New Garden Town)
10. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder prays for a short adjournment to seek fresh instructions in the matter.
11. Re-list on 30-7-2007.
Kalma Tower (Property No,3-4, Tipu Block, New Garden Town, Lahore)
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.
Masood Hospital (99-Garden Block, New Garden Town, Lahore)
13. The Director-General, L.D.A. Has submitted his report. The learned Advocate Supreme Court for the builder prays forssome time to examine the same. Re-list on 30-7-2007.
Garden Towers (Plot No,47, Babar Block, New Garden Town, Lahore)
14. No one appears for the builder.
15. Re-list on 30-7-2007 with notice to the builder.
Rabi Centre (Plot No,3, Block-N, Gulberg-II, Lahore)
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.
17. Let the Commission submit its report in writing about the said incident for further action.
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.
19. Re-list on 6-8-2007.
Cancellation of bail matter
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.