Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.--19 persons of the locality of Khaliq Street, Ihata Barkat Ali, outside Mochi Gate, filed a complaint against the appellants that they have established a chilli grinding unit in the residential area. It causes TNT and respiratory emissions. A report was called on 1.5.1989 and after receiving the report, notice to the appellant was issued under Section 16(1) of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. Environmental Protection Order (EPO) was issued on 4.8.1989, wherein it was found that industrial unit of the appellants spreads spices' dust and causes severe air pollution. The appellants assailed the order in W.P. No, 15358 of 1999. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 26.8.1989 with the direction that no coercive measures shall be adopted against the appellants, till the functioning of the Tribunal. The Tribunal subsequently directed for re- inspection of the industrial unit. The site was inspected on 2.10.2004, 04.10.2004 and 08.10.2004. It was reported that unpleasant chilli smell odour, is a constant irritant and causes air pollution. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 27.10.2005 affirmed the decision regarding closure of the industrial unit, but set aside the order of the provincial agency, regarding shifting of the chilli grinding unit, from it's existing premises.
The appellant, through instant appeal, has now assailed the judgment of learned Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel has repeated the arguments, which were addressed before the learned Tribunal. It was submitted that no inquiry had been conducted nor the appellants were associated with any inquiry. The mandatory notice under Section 16(1) was not issued to the appellant. The action against the appellant is mala fide and provincial agency has no lawful authority to pass the order of shifting of the grinding unit. The impugned action is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel in support of this contention has referred to the case of "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Director General Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi and 4 others" (2005 SCMR 77). He has referred to the judgment reported as AIR 1995 Orrisa 1984 (from Indian jurisdiction) and contended that order of shifting of the unit is not within the jurisdiction of the respondent agency.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted_ ,, that the appellant was provided adequate opportunity of hearing. DG, EPA visited the premises thrice and his report was submitted to the Tribunal on 08.08.2004. The limit is involved in the business, which has adverse effects on the health of the residents of the locality.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. The appellants' unit was found constant cause of discharge or emission of effluent, which results into severe air pollution. Environmental Protection Order dated 08.05.1999 was passed, while exercising powers under Section 16 of the Act of 1997 and the petitioner was directed to stop the operation of the unit. The appellant was served with the notice, which was received by his nephew Muhammad Asif. The notice regarding Environmental Protection Order dated 04.08.1999 was received by appellant's son Khalique-uz-Zaman. The Environmental Consultant Engineer, Mumtaz Hussain studied the report of the Inspector Environment and visited the unit. As per Environmental officers, the unit was found constant cause for pollution. Loading and unloading was not found up to the standards.
Crushing and grinding was found creating sever chilli dust and there were various points therefrom chilli dust escaped through holes in the roof, walls and doors. The inspection of the project was carried on the direction of the Tribunal. The report submitted after three visits to the units reveals that emission from, the project, is injurious to the health of the residents and constant source of irritation, which causes various respiratory diseases. The Environmental Protection Order.
Environmental Protection Assessm ent and the report of Director General (Environment) (on the direction of the learned Tribunal), is sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants are involved in a business, which offends provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
6. The notices were issued under Section 16(1) of the Act and impugned action against the appellant was taken within the parameters of law. The order, therefore, is devoid of any illegality or infirmity to call for interference in this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has wrongly contended that the Tribunal has affirmed the order/direction of EPA, regarding shifting of unit from existing place to some other place. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is clear. It has been held by learned Tribunal that shifting of the unit from it's existing place to another site, is not a lawful order and such order is in conflict with the provisions of PEPA, Act and it's preamble. Learned Tribunal, therefore, set aside the order, whereby the appellant was directed to shift it's project.
7. Environmental Protection Order was passed on 04.08.1999, while the appellant is delaying the matter, by fighting on mere technicalities for the past ten years. The unit has been established in a residential area and permitting to function such industrial project (obnoxiously) for a considerable long time by offending the provisions of the Act, will not save the purpose of law and justice. This illegal activity has to come to an end. It should not be allowed to be carried on, under the shelter of frivolous and technical objections.
8. This appeal, for the foregoing, has no force and is accordingly dismissed.