1. ' Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent unit is closed since July, 2010 due to labour and gas problems. He further states that whenever the unit becomes operational the Tribunal will be informed about this fact and thereafter unit can be inspected for verifying whether respondent has taken all the remedial measures to make it environment friendly.
2. ' The private complainant is directed to keep a watch over the factory and whenever it becomes functional he will be duly bound to bring this fact to the notice of the Tribunal. Adjourned without fixing any date.
3. (Sd)/- (Sd)/- Khawaj a Muhammad Afzal Ch. Khalil (Chairperson) (Member Tech.)
4. ' I respectfully do not agree with the above order and separately passes my own order with reasons.
5. ' I disagree with the order dated 27-1-2011 passed by worthy Chairperson in the both above titled cases my findings are as follows:--
1. The facts upon which both complaints were filed are respondent in both the cases namely Muhammad Qasim established Glass Bottle manufacturing unit with a heavy Furnaces in the residential area of Ravi Road, Lahore. One Shaukat All filed an application before the Director General Punjab Environmental Protection Tribunal and also served 30 days Notice to initiate the legal action. Although Environmental Protection Order dated 30-6-2007 was issued by the Punjab Environmental Protection Tribunal but complaint was not filed by the department so the private complainant Shaukat All constrained to file the private complaint on 20-9-2007 wherein his preliminary statement was recorded. It was on 1-3-2010 when Punjab Environmental Protection Tribunal was also pleased to file the complaint against the respondent in this Tribunal while the private complaint was pending and the proceedings have been initiated w.e.f.
6. 2007.
2. In the private complaint written reply were filed by the parties whereas charge was framed on 28-5-2008 upon respondent Muhammad Qasim which was denied by him and preferred to produce his evidence. List of witnesses and gist of evidence were filed by respondent and private complainant thereafter case was fixed for recording the evidence of the private complainant Shaukat Ali vide an order dated 22-7-2008; several opportunities were provided to private complainant to produce his evidence but none of it was availed. On 5-4-2010, respondent stated before this Tribunal that he will take all the remedial measures for the satisfaction of private complainant for which one month time may be allowed. The same was allowed and case was again fixed for complainant evidence, which was again not recorded and private complaint was fixed to be heard along with the official complaint.
7. ' On the other hand, in the complaint filed by the department, the Site Inspection was ordered to be conducted vide an order dated 17-6-2010 to check whether any improvement in the unit has been effected and what remedial measures have been taken to control the noise pollution. The Site Inspection Report filed on 19-10-2010 reveals that factory was closed for the last three months for annual repair. Therefore, complainant department was again directed to in respect the factory.
8. ' I have perused the record of both the files and find out that respondent Qasim misstated before the Tribunal many times that he has adopted remedial measures. Therefore, the Sites Inspections were ordered to be conducted by the complainant department several times.
(i) The first Site Inspection Report dated 3-7-2006 reveals that the respondent unit is consisted of one main furnace, two small heating Furnaces and four molding machines. The raw materials consist of A broken pieces of glasses and Nylon whereas natural gas is used as fuel. The raw material is molded in main Furnace at 1000 - 1100 0C wherefrom different types of bottles are prepared. A foil of diesel is applied on molding material in the dyes. This whole process emits fumes of diesel in the atmosphere and generates high noise which is beyond NEQS limits and source of discomfort for all the inhabitants of the locality and causes serious environmental implications in thickly populated area.
(ii) Secondly, the follow up visit report on Compliance Status was checked on 8-11-2007 and is of the evident that proprietor has shifted the industrial unit to some other locality since 4-10-2007 and no machinery is present there. Consequently respondent/pollutant moved an application on 28-1- 2008 for re-inspection. On the other hand private complainant Shaukat Ali filed an application stating therein that respondent unit is still functional and not closed by the respondent.
(iii) The Site Inspection was again ordered to be conducted for third time on 25-7-2008 and Inspection Team found that industrial unit was in operation and the respondent only shifted the previous machinery to some other location and installed new machinery at the site in question. The inhabitants of the locality complained that respondent factory causing environmental problems due to noise of generator and glass kiln. The night working also enhance their problems. The map of the locality was also filed which shows that area is thickly populated.
(iv) The Site Inspection conducted fourth time on 4-8-2009 by Air Pollution Team, reported gaseous emission such as NOX and Noise beyond normal limit of NEQS during heating process, temperature reached at the level of 1200 C .Whereas in the complainant's house it reaches at the level of 600 C.
(v) Again respondent/pollutant requested to revisit the site stating that he has taken all the remedial measure. So this Tribunal vide an order dated 17-6-2010 directed the Air Pollution Team to check whether the para meters are within the NEQS limit. The Site Inspection Report produced on 18-10-2010 reveals that the respondent factory is not in operation for the last three months due to annual repair and overhaul.
(vi) The Tribunal again directed the complainant department to revisit the Site when factory will operational. But that visit was not conducted as respondent counsel on 27-1-2011 stated before the Tribunal that unit is closed since July 2010 and will be informed when it become operational.
9. ' It seems that respondent is playing hide and seek with the Tribunal and abusing the process of law. Whenever, Site Inspection was ordered to be conducted by this Tribunal, the respondent close the unit to avoid the Site Inspection. This behaviour has been practicing by the respondent since 2006. The Site Inspection reports sufficiently evident that due to the functioning of respondent unit, large number of inhabitance of the locality are suffering due to high noise, gaseous emissions like Nox and high heat in the locality.
10. ' The matter is pending since 2006 when application against the respondent unit Was flied by an inhabitants of the locality. It seems that respondent never bother to adopt any remedial measures to become environment friendly nor he is interested to produce any evidence before this Tribunal.
11. ' Therefore, relying upon all the above mentioned Site Inspection Report, which sufficiently connect the respondent with commission of offence under section 11 of PEP Act 1997 the respondent factory has to be closed permanently to safe the people from all types of environmental complications. To adjourn such cases for indefinite period will serve no purpose except to hang the sword permanently over the heads of sufferer i.e. Inhabitants of the locality.
12. ' For the past pollution, respondent be charged with Rs,500,000 as fine to be deposited within one month of passing the order, failing which, the respondent Unit be sealed permanently by the Punjab Environmental Protection Agency.
13. ' With these observations the complaint is hereby disposed of with no order as to costs. The file may be consigned to record room after its completion.
14. (Sd)/- Ms. Gulzar Butt (Member Legal)