' Raheel Majeed son of Malik Abdul Majeed resident of Hanif Park, Harbanspura, Lahore filed the instant private complaint on 18-3-2008 along with two other complainants of the same locality namely Waheed ul Zaman Jan and Muhammad Shafique son of Muhammad Saain against DG EPA and two real brothers namely Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Iqbal who are owners of two factories known as "Fiber Optics" and "Furnace Works" situated in the residential area.
2. It is alleged in the complaint the "Fiber Optics" and "Furnace Works" factories are being run by respondents Nos.2 and 3 without securing Environmental Approval which is necessary under section 12 of PEPA 1997. Operation of heavy electrical hammers in the factories causes loud noise, vibration and tremors as a result of which the adjoining houses and building are being damaged.
Additionally offensive odour and pungent fumes emitted by these factories are adversely affecting health of the nearby inhabitants. Parking and plying of heavy vehicles in the street causes nuisance.
3. Preliminary statement of Muhammad Raheel Majeed complainant was recorded by the predecessor Tribunal under section 200, Cr.P.C. On 20-5-2008 whereby prima facie case was made out against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and process was issued to them for 18-6-2008 on which date Mr. Akhtar H. Awan Advocate appeared on their behalf and was directed to file written reply of the complaint which was ultimately submitted on 4-8-2008 while reply of the complaint on behalf of respondent No, 1 was filed by ADPP on 8-9-2008.
4. In their reply of para 1 of the complaint respondent No, 1 has stated that as per available record no notice was served upon DG EPA by the complainant as required by section 21(3), PEPA, 1997 prior to filing of the instant complaint.
5. In their reply of the complaint respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated that the unit was monitored by EPA Laboratory and found environment friendly as all the parameters were within the prescribed limits of NEQs. The complainants have deliberately and with mala fide intent concealed the proceedings conducted by EPA.
6. Earlier on the complaint of another complainant namely Zahid Khan, respondent No, 1 deputed Deputy Director (Lab) for Site Monitoring Report regarding the exact cause of pollution problem.
The Deputy Director (Lab)/Chief Analyst got conducted detailed Site Inspection of the units with the following conclusion.
"NOx, SO2 H2S from the exhaust of heating furnace do not exceed NEQs limits. There was negligible impact of noise in and around the factory."
7. After getting another Site Inspection Report from District Officer Environment, Lahore respondent No,1 invoked section 16 of PEPA, 1997 and summoned the parties for hearing as required under section 16(1), PEPA, 1997 ibid. Meanwhile the complainant instituted this complaint without waiting for the end result of Agency's proceedings.
8. Complaint was fixed for preliminary arguments/ recording the statement of allegation of respondent No, 3 on 7-10-2008. However instead of doing so the Tribunal directed respondent No, 1 to visit the unit at the cost of the complainants as requested and file Site Inspection Report on 16- 12-2008. Perusal of the order sheet of the said date does not show that the said Site Inspection Report was filed on that day. What is recorded on that date is that "both the parties addressed the preliminary arguments in support of their respective contentions and the complaint was adjourned for further proceedings and framing of charge to 7-1-2009."
9. Thereafter the Tribunal did not function till 7-7-2009 as the post of Chairperson remained vacant during this period. The complaint came up for hearing before the present Tribunal on 23-7-2009 and on the request of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was adjourned to 10-8- 2009 for framing of charge as he was busy before Islamabad High Court on that very day.
10. On 15-12-2009 charge was framed against respondent No,3. The complainants were directed to provide list of their witnesses and gist of their evidence within ten days from that date and the complaint was adjourned for the complainant's evidence to 27-1-2010. On that day four witnesses of the complainant namely Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Siddique, Ghulam Abbas and Muhammasd Aslam were present before the Tribunal along with Mr. Raheel Majeed complainant and his counsel Mr. Yamin Raza Advocate. These witnesses had given their attested affidavits to the complainants in support of their complaint which he had filed along with the complaint. So names of the witnesses and their statements were known to respondent No,3. Still on that very day (27-1-2010) learned counsel for respondent No,3 filed an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.
Wherein he took up the following grounds:--
(a) The complainant has not submitted list of his witnesses and gist of that statements as the same was not available on the file.
(b) FPA monitored the unit through its laboratory and found it environment friendly as all the parameters are within the prescribed limits of NEQs.
11. Copy of the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Was delivered to the learned counsel for the complainant who filed its reply on 25-2-2010 maintaining that the list of witnesses was filed by him on 18-1-2010 instead of 26-12-2009 as Courts and Tribunals were closed due to winter vacations.
Complaint was then adjourned to 5-4-2010 for arguments which were heard on the same day and case was fixed for orders on 12-5-2010, 26-6-2010, 17-8-2010 and 18-10-2010. Judgment however could not be dictated during the said period and uptill now as a number of high profile cases were filed by EPA, Punjab and the Tribunal was required to hold day to day proceedings in Islamabad for their early disposal.
12. By this single order we are disposing of the application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And the complaint together.
13. Record further reveals that Notice of Hearing dated 5-9-2008 was issued by the Director (North/P and C) on behalf of DG EPA to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 wherein it is stated that " this office got inspected the site through District Officer (Environment), Lahore. Prima facie it has been established from investigation record that your unit named Fiber Craft Industry (Fiber Optics) is causing environmental pollution of the following description in violation of provisions of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
Expansion of the unit especially installation of aluminum moulding section (extruder) anodizing work and fiber glass ladder section without securing environmental approval mandatory under section 12 of the Act ibid. Offensive odour and pungent fumes are generated from polyester resin/expiry epoxy during dyeing and heating flux to melt aluminum scrap.
High level of noise/vibration and tremor are generated during operation of aluminium extruder, blower of gas fired kiln, grinders/cutters and standby power generator. The problem of noise enhances at night houRs, There is potential risk of fire hazard from storage/use of flammable chemicals.
The parking and plying of long vehicles in the street causes public nuisance. This notice of personal hearing was addressed to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and its copy was sent to Mr. Raheel Majeed complainant No,1 and other residents of Harbanspura but in the meanwhile the complainants filed a private complaint before the Tribunal on 18-3-2008.
14. In reply of the complaint filed by the respondent No,1 an objection is taken that prior to the institution of instant complaint before the Environmental Protection Tribunal mandatory notice of 30 days was not served on the bG EPA. However such a notice dated 26-12-2007 is available in the file. This is sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 21(3)(b) of PEPA 1997.
15. On going through the various site monitoring reports filed by the department and the private analysis report of units submitted by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that NOx, SO2, and H2S from the exhaust of the heating furnace did not exceed NEQs limits and there was a negligible impact of noise in and around the factory, allegations of loud noise, vibration and tremors caused by the operation of electric hammers of the factories, emission of offensive odour and pungent fumes from the two factories and nuisance caused by parking and plying of heavy vehicles are not established. However the main charge against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that of "Expansion of the unit especially installation of aluminum moulding section (extruder) anodizing work and fiber glass ladder section without securing environmental approval mandatory under section 12 of the Act ibid."
16. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced NOC for establishing, expanding and operating their units. They have failed to comply with the provisions of section 12 of PFPA. 1997 and for such non-compliance a fine of Rs,100,000 for both the units is imposed upon them which is to be deposited in the treasury within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to them.
They are directed to file deposit receipt of fine in the Tribunal for record. If the fine is not paid within the given period the factories shall be sealed.
' Thus the complaint is accepted on the above terms and application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is dismissed. 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.