' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this petition, the Petitioner has impugned the sealing of distillery plant by the Respondent No. 2 for being illegal and contrary to law.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner runs a distillery plant, which is environment friendly and does not cause any adverse environmental effect nor any pollution. The Petitioner received a notice on 21.10.2008 requiring the Petitioner to appear before the Director (North/P&C), EPA Punjab with respect to a complain issued that its distillery plant was generating water waste, which is exceeding the NEQS limits. The Petitioner filed a reply to the notice wherein it explained the steps that had been taken to remain within the NEQS limits. On 12.02.2009 an Environmental Protection Order (EPO) was issued under section 16 of PEPA, 1997. It was found that the liquid effluents released by the distillery plant exceed the NEQS limits. Against this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Environmental Protection Tribunal, Lahore which appeal is still pending. Thereafter, a complaint was filed under section 21(3)(a) of PEPA, 1997 (Act of 1997) by Director General, Environmental Protection Agency, Lahore on the ground that the locals of the area of the distillery plant have raised a protest against the toxic effluents being discharged into the water and damaging public property, adversely affecting the crops, the land and the health of the people. The complaint is also pending before Environmental Tribunal, Lahore. In the meanwhile, on 15.02.2014 a notice was issued to the Petitioner essentially on the same grounds as contained in the EPO dated 12.02.2009 and the complaint under section 21(3)(a) of the Act of 1997, directing the Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No,4. On the said date, the Petitioner appeared and filed his reply on 17.02.2014. The Petitioner explained that the matter is sub-judice before the Environmental Tribunal and that the matter is.Governed by a special law, therefore, the Respondents did not have jurisdiction under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). After issuing the said notice and without passing any order, the Respondent No,2 sealed the distillery plant of the Petitioner on 24.02.2014. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the act of sealing is illegal as the Respondents do not have jurisdiction under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance of 2001) or the Act of 2013. Learned counsel argued that the Act of 1997 is a special law specifically made for the protection and improvement of the environment and for the prevention and control of pollution.
Therefore, he argued that since there is a special law the Respondents cannot exercise general powers under the Act of 2013. Learned counsel further argued that the Respondents did not follow any procedure, did not give the Petitioner an opportunity to rectify the defect, did not impose any penalty, did not give the Petitioner any hearing and yet directly went and sealed the distillery plant.
Learned counsel further argued that no written order has been passed, hence the act of sealing by the Respondent No,2 is illegal. Further argued that no adequate, efficacious and alternate remedy is available to the Petitioner, hence this writ petition has been filed.
3. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the Respondents. Learned Law Officer argued that on 13.02.2014 an application was submitted before the Respondent No,3 stating therein that the distillery plant of the Petitioner was emitting liquid effluents into the water as a result of which the people of the locality were suffering from various health issues. She argued that the matter became so serious and that the complainant being farmers and other people of locality threatened to protest on the streets against the pollution being caused by the Petitioner if no action was taken against them by the competent authority. The matter was brought to the notice of the Respondent No,2, who convened a meeting of the stakeholders on 15.02.2014. The meeting was attended by the DSP Headquarter on behalf of the DPO, XEN Drainage, District Officer (Environment), the representative of the Kissan Board and Kissan Itehad (the complainants) and a large number of the inhabitants of the area including the management of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was informed that the effluents of the units had hazardous effect on the people of the locality. Mr. Rizwan Niaz, Adman Manager of the Petitioner was directed to stop the discharge of effluent of the distillery. On 17.02.2014 the management of the Petitioner produced an agreement with the Drainage Department and others that they would stop the discharge of the polluted water into the drains and assured that the polluted water of the distillery would be thrown into the drain only when it was treated as per the standards of the Environment Department. Notwithstanding this agreement, the Petitioner continued to drain out the polluted water without any regard to the hazard it was causing. Again a meeting was held on 24.02.2014 when the management of the Petitioner was present and it was decided that the plant should be visited to ascertain the real situation. The representatives of the complainants along with others visited the distillery plant of the Petitioner where it was found that the polluted water of the distillery was still being thrown in the drain without proper care. Learned Law Officer argued that several warnings were given to the Petitioner yet it continued to drain out the polluted water. Therefore, the Respondent No,2 was compelled to take necessary action by sealing the distillery plant of the Petitioner. Learned Law Officer further argued that the Petitioner was well aware that some action will be taken, as it was given fair warning and notice of the same. She argued that they gave an undertaking to correct the situation, however they failed to rectify the issue. Further argued that the DCO under section 138 of the Act of 2013 can seal the premises where it is considered that there is a serious threat to public safety or welfare or danger to life and liberty. She argued that the Petitioner has a remedy available against the sealing order under Section 143 of the Act of 2013, which is the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner to avail.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.
5. The act of sealing the distillery plant was done after giving notice to the Petitioner and after giving it an opportunity to rectify the issue. The original record produced before the Court shows that the Petitioner participated in the meetings and undertook that it will not throw the polluted water into the drainage and shall ensure its safe disposal. Therefore the record shows that the Petitioner had fair warning of the situation at hand. As to the act of sealing the distillery plant by the Respondent No,3, the power to seal is under Section 138 of the Act of 2013 which 's to be exercised in cases of threat to public health, safety or welfare of the public. This power is an independent power and the pendency of the appeal or complaint against the Petitioner cannot prevent the Respondents from taking notice of a serious threat to public health and safety. Furthermore, it is noted that remedy of appeal is available under Section 143 of the Act of 2013.
6. Therefore, under the circumstances, no case for interference is made out. .