' The appellant feels aggrieved of the judgment dated 5-3-2008 of the learned Environmental Protection Tribunal Punjab, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed against Environmental Protection Order (EPO) dated 24-1-2007 has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the said EPO was issued on the basis of wrong reports as to the NEQS Limits and further the appellant was not confronted with the reports. At the same time, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has already been taking steps for the treatment of the waste water to keep its values within the NEQS limits. Further contention is that the appellant is in the process of winding up the unit in question as another unit is being expanded.
3. We find that after receiving the reports as to the said environmental pollution, the appellant was served with a notice and thereafter a personal hearing was conducted by the Provincial Environmental Protection Agency. .The learned counsel has appended a letter, wherein the measures being taken were stated. These were covering of the drain, raising the height of the chimney and then the details of the plan to shift the unit was reported. After hearing the appellant, the Environmental Protection Agency passed an EPO on 24-1-2007 and the appellant was given a three month's notice to take appropriate measures to treat the waste water of unit to keep it within NEQS limits, failing which it was to be proceeded against under section 17 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. It was against this order that the appellant filed an appeal under section 22 of the said Act which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
4. We find that the complaints started coming in as to the environmental hazards being caused by the unit of the appellant as far back as in the year 1999 and the proceedings were conducted by the concerned agency. The remedial measures were suggested after notifying the appellant of the reports regarding the pollution.
5. Having examined the records, we find that the appellant had never seriously questioned the fact that effluents are A polluted. On the other hand, the case of the appellant had been that it had intended to take measures for reduction of the pollution and even it was suggested that the unit is being wound up. But it is obvious that the needful has not been done. This being so, we do not find any grounds being made out to interfere either with the impugned judgment of the said Tribunal or the said EPO. The E.A. Is dismissed in limine.