' MUSSARAT BAIG (MEMBER TECHNICAL).---This appeal has arisen against the Environmental Protection Order (EPO) dated 24-1-2007 issued by the respondent No,2 on behalf of Director- General, Environmental Protection Agency, Lahore/ respondent No,1 on the allegation that appellant unit's waste water is causing environmental pollution and the value of the parameters i,e, COD, BOD, TDS, SS, SD4 and sulphide exceeds the NEQS limits. The appellant's unit was given three months time to take appropriate measures to treat the waste water of the unit and keeping it within the NEQS limits. Failing to comply with the directions, the appellant unit was to be proceeded under section 17 of PEPA, 1997.
2. However, feeling aggrieved by the EPO ibid, the appellant referred this appeal within one month from date of issuance of EPO questioning the validity of the E.P.O. On the various grounds namely:-
(i) It is illegal on the part of the respondent No,1 to issue the E.P.O. Under section 16(1) of the Act without notifying to the appellant the findings, tests, surveys and reports of the staff of the E.P.A. On which the E.P.O. Is based.
(ii) There are no findings or surveys of the respondents' Department provided or notified to the appellant which states that the effluents of appellant's unit are violating the provisions of the Act.
(iii) The impugned E.P.O. Has not specified that how much of the appellant's effluents are in excess of the NEQS.
(iv) The respondents should have arranged for the tests and analyses of the samples at a certified laboratory as per the Environmental Samples Rules, 2001 ("the rules"). The respondents did not follow the Rules in this respect, therefore, the impugned E.P.O. Is liable to be struck down on this ground.
' Further, agitated by the appellant that the respondent did not follow the PEPA, 1997 and its rules; that the respondent No,2 was not delegated any power by the respondent No,1 to issue impugned EPO under section 16 of the Act, that the impugned E.P.O. Is an assault on the fundamental right to freedom of trade and business under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, that the issuance of the E.P.O. Is based on mala fide, therefore, as impugned E.P.O. Is illegal, void, without jurisdiction, hence, it is liable to be set aside through acceptance of this appeal.
3. Original record from the Department was summoned and arguments from both sides heard.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been that the appellant's unit is environmental friendly and the appellant has embarked on a phased program to reduce the pollution load in its effluents. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is in the process of installing a number of new equipment which includes Saltec Press to handle the sludge and various screens and filters to reduce the amount of suspended solids at source which shall also significantly affect the COD and BOD. Values of the final discharge effluent and it is accepted that by taking such measures, the appellant shall be able to achieve the significant reduction in the effluent load in the paper and board production.
5. Next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Department has acted with mala fide and illegally for the reason of without notifying, conveying to the appellant the findings, tests, service and reports of the staff of E.P.A., Lahore on which the E.P.O. Was based. Even, the E.P.O.
Failed to disclose that how much of the appellant's effluents are in excess of the NEQS, therefore, the impugned E.P.O. Being void, defective and ambiguous is liable to be set aside.
6. Conversely, it is argued on behalf of the respondents that the Department had taken all measures and observed all legal formalities before issuance of E.P.O. The appellant was duly provided an opportunity of hearing. Waste water samples collected from the appellant's unit were analysed through examination conducted by the E.P.A., Laboratory, therefore, it is incorrect to argue' by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents acted with some mala fide intention or did not adhere to the PEPA, 1997 and its rules. Further maintained by the learned DDPP that from the bare perusal of the contents of the appeal, it is obvious that the appellant is still in the process of taking measures to control and reduce the effluent load and treat the waste water to keep its values within limits of the NEQS, therefore, the appeal has no merits and as such liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of the arguments, we have gone through the record. Before discussing the appeal on merits, it is pertinent to mention that this case has a peculiar history and it starts from the year 1999. As per record on 22-5-1999, one Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Nayyar, Chief Engineer, Lahore Cantt.
Cooperative Housing Society Limited filed a complaint against the untreated effluent drain of Messrs Packages Ltd. The site was inspected by the Inspector on 15-9-1999 and reported that "the effluents of the said factory passes through Sector-X, Y, CC, DD and EE of Defence Housing Society and drop in Charrar Drain which ultimately join Hadyara Drain. E.P.O. Was issued by the Department on 24-9-1999 with the directions:--
(i) Improve the efficiency of Scrubber installed in inkplant to control foul odour;
(ii) To control smoke, burn safely the chemicals containing empty paper bags in covered space and de-silt waste water drain and transport the de-silted matter in wet condition (in order to control dust problem);
(iii) De-silt waste water drain and transport the de-silted matter in wet condition (in order to control dust problem).
8. The directions given in the E.P.O. Were not complied with by the respondent. However, on the orders of the Secretary, Environment, Lahore, a team comprising of Deputy Director (Lab.), Deputy Director (Lahore), Research Assistant Labs, SDO, Defence Housing Society. And Quality and Environment System Manager, Packages Ltd. was deputed for the investigation of the matter. The team, during visit dated 14-5-2001, collected 4 samples from different points and submitted the report to. The Department on 21-5-2001 in which BOD, COD, TDS, TSS and Sulphate in the effluents were exceeding the NEQS. It was recommended that "industry may be asked to take necessary remedial measures for water pollution control". After the issuance of E.P.O., Department for monitoring purpose took samples of the effluents on 21-9-1999 and on 14-5-2001.
9. Meanwhile, on 16-8-2003 one Mrs. Aatika Pasha resident of 109, Sector-HH, DHA, Lahore lodged a complaint to the Secretary, E.P.A., Lahore that Nala is creating untolerable odour and suffocation.
Meanwhile, on 21-12-2003, Assembly Question No,3345, 3360 and 3390 was raised in the Provincial Assembly, Punjab, Lahore. The E.P.A. Again investigated the industrial waste of the factory .On 15-12- 2003, and sent the reply of Starred Assembly Question stating that "the waste water is not within NEQS and the effluent is drained out in open drain upto 1.5 K.M. Along with Shahrah-e-Awan-e- Iqbal. Remaining portion of the drain is concreted and covered which ultimately falls in the Charrar Drain and Department is taking action as per Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997". The E.P.A., Lahore again analyses industrial waste on 4-2-2005 and issued various notices to the Packages Private Ltd. And after going through the proper procedure of the personal hearing. The impugned E.P.O. Dated 24-1-2007 was issued with the directions "that the parameters i,e, BOD, COD, TDS, SS, SO4 and Sulphide exceed the NEQS and appropriate measures be taken to treat the waste water of the unit to keep it within NEQS within a period of 3 months. Instead of complying with the directions of the E.P.O., the appellant (Packages Limited) preferred this appeal.
10. From the brief facts stated after perusal of the record, there can be no denial of this fact that right from the year 1999, the appellant's unit was time and again directed by the. E.P.A. To control the pollution as highlighted in the E.P.O. It is also evident that throughout the entire proceedings, the appellant fully participated and remained associated with the entire process of personal hearing as well as taking of the samples A etc., therefore, it is incorrect to allege that the findings of the E.P.A. Were not notified or within the knowledge of the appellant. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant has not come forward with the contention that the appellant's effluents are free from any pollution. In this behalf it would be appropriate to refer Para No,6 of the appeal which reads as under:-- "To improve the environmental loads at Lahore plant, the appellant is in the process of installing a number of new equipment's which includes Saltec Press to handle the sludge and various screens and filters to reduce the amount of suspended solids at source which shall also significantly affect the COD and BOD values of the final discharge effluent.
' It is expected that the appellant shall be able to achieve following significant reductions in the effluent load in the paper and board production operations after the implementation of above mentioned steps." '
In the light of the Para ibid, it can safely be concluded that the appellant's unit, despite lapse of about 9 years, failed to control its effluents as mentioned in the impugned E.P.O., therefore, there is hardly any ground B available to the appellant to question the validity of the impugned E.P.O., hence the instant appeal having no force is, hereby, dismissed.
' Announced. File be consigned to record. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.