' JUSTICE (R) CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, CHAIRPERSON.---The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned EPO dated 03.12.2014 passed by the respondent whereby the Protein Poultry Shed of the appellant was directed to stop all the operational activities of the Poultry Controlled Shed established illegally without getting approval of the Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab and due to severe environmental degradation by its operational activities, to save the environment and health of the surrounding community/complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the respondent No, 2 has passed the impugned order and through the instant appeal the vires of the same have been assailed on the grounds that the EPO is illegal and void. The appellant unit was established before the promulgation of the PEP Act, 1997 (as amended in 2012) which had no retrospective effect. Due to this reasons the allegation for violation of the provisions of section 12 of the Act had been withdrawn while issuing the earlier EPO dated 12.10.2012.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Hatif Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant argued that earlier the respondents had issued EPO dated 12.10.2012 to the appellant for alleged violation of section 12 and the appellant was directed to take remedial measures. In compliance of the same the appellant adopted all the possible remedial measures to control pollution. The impugned order has been passed without considering the steps taken by the appellant at the site and without taking into consideration the stance of the appellant contained in the written reply submitted in response to the earlier notice of hearing under section 16 of the Act ibid. The appellant had already taken necessary measures to control the odour and had planted 400 additional plants in the vicinity of the unit whereas the solid waste produced by the poultry farm was properly disposed of and pits were available for the dead birds. Without giving any impugned order was passed illegally which is void ab initio as the EPA had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and stop the operational activities of the unit.
4. The learned Counsel further maintained that the Provincial Agency had not framed any regulations of its own for review of LEE and EIA and the allegation of establishing the appellant unit had already been given up while issuing the earlier EPO. The learned Counsel maintained that the EPO was not signed by the Director General rather Director EIA issued the same by putting his signatures instead of Director General. The learned Counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing this appeal.
5. The learned Law Officer has vehemently resisted the appeal. He argued that the impugned order was passed in accordance with law by a competent officer and it suffers from no legal infirmities.
Section 16(2)(a) empowers the Agency to immediately stop the operational activities of the appellant. He however could not convince this Tribunal that any regulations of the Provincial Agency for review of IEE and EIA had been framed. While fully defending the impugned order the learned Law Officer prayed for dismissal of appeal.
6. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Law Officer. Admittedly the Provincial Agency had not framed its own regulations for review of IEE and EIA after the promulgation of amended Act in 2012. The impugned EPO finds mention that the same is being passed by the Director General but instead of having been signed by him it was signed by the Director for Director General which is not permissible in law. It is an established principle of law that when an act is required to be done in a particular manner it must be done in that way alone or not at all. So the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law on this score besides other grounds.
7. Since no forum for granting Environmental Approval existed so the direction contained in the EPO to stop the operational activities unless the approval was obtained could not be given. No other specific and practicable direction was given to the appellant before stopping the operational activities of the unit. This Tribunal has already held that the Agency has no jurisdiction to close, stop or seal any unit. The relevant portion of the judgment in Appeal No, 43/2015 titled Shalimar Pyrolysis v. Director General EPA and others is reproduced as under for ready reference:- ' The stoppage of the unit does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Agency. We would like to reproduce the provisions of section 16(1)(2)(a) as under: "immediate stoppage, preventing, lessening or controlling the discharge, emission, disposal, handling, act or omission, or to minimize or remedy the adverse environmental effect;"
' (sic.) of the unit or the plant. Rather the same relates to stoppage of discharge, emission, disposal, handling, act or omission or to minimize the adverse environmental effect. So the EPA could direct the appellant to adopt remedial measures whereby the pollution could be controlled or the emission beyond the permissible limits could be stopped. This provision is being mis-used by the Agency and instead of imparting directions to control the pollution the unit is stopped which is quite illegal and is not warranted by law. The closure of the unit can be ordered only by this Tribunal under section 17(5)(c) in case of 2nd complaint after conviction of the accused in an earlier complaint.
8. In the light of the above discussion the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law so the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside ,and the matter is remanded to the Agency for decision afresh strictly in accordance with law in the light of the above observations of this Tribunal after hearing the appellant.
' A copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General EPA immediately for compliance.