' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---This is an appeal under section 23 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 ("Act") challenging impugned order dated 23.2.2011 passed by Respondent No,1 in Complaint No,229/10.
2. The case of the Appellant is that he was running a poultry farm since 1976. The land on which the poultry farm was running was obtained on lease for a period of 50 years. The poultry farm is located in an isolated place in the hills about 4/5 kilometers away from village Nandkot. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted there are no dwellings near the poultry farm nor any population close to the poultry farm. There is a shed which has been made and a furnace and husk/litter is available for the poultry farm. Learned counsel submitted that Environmental Protection Order ("EPO") dated 8.9.2016 was issued without hearing the Appellant and, when the Appellant found out about the EPO he challenged it and .Stated in his reply that the poultry farm was not functional from 18.1.2011 to April 2641. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellant's poultry farm was made prior to the promulgation of the Act, hence the Appellant is not required to obtain No Objection Certificate under the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that a committee was formed to inspect the poultry farm of the Appellant in terms of order dated 18.1.2011 of the Environmental Tribunal ("Tribunal"). The committee visited the poultry farm of the Appellant without any notice to the Appellant and without taking the independent statement of the two witnesses of the locality as required in the order of the Tribunal dated 18.1.2011. Learned counsel submitted that the facts stated in the impugned order are incorrect. He clarified that poultry farm has been closed since then and the Appellant is facing great loss and if his poultry farm cannot be permitted to continue on the given land the investment made by the Appellant will be totally wasted.
3. Learned Law Officer argued that EPO was issued on 8.9.2010. The Appellant was aware of the environment hazardous being caused and the pollution, generated yet he ignored the EPO. He was served notices for hearing but he did not appear. Respondent No,2 then filed a complaint under section 21(3)(a) of the Act wherein it is specifically mentioned that the Appellant was polluting the environment not only in the form of bad smell but also that he did not have any proper waste disposal mechanism of the dead birds. He argued that the Respondent damaging the environment which was hazardous to the health of the people residing in the area. Learned Officer submitted that it is a populated area having residences and industries in the area. The Appellant poultry farm polluting the water in the Korang River and Rawal Lake as the farm is located in the catchment area. Learned Law Officer submitted that the Appellant was present at the time when the order was passed by the Tribunal. He raised no objection nor did he present any defence on his behalf.
Therefore he is bound to comply with: the requirement of the impugned order failing which he cannot maintain the poultry farm business at the given location.
4. Heard and record perused. The impugned order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the Tribunal requires the Appellant to shift its poultry farm business from the given location at least 500 meters away from the residential area and 500 meters away from the water channel. The record shows that this order was passed in presence of the Appellant who admittedly raised no objection at that time nor did he raise any objection against the maintainability of the complaint or the factual report presented by the committee to the Tribunal. The record also shows that the EPO was issued on 8.9.2010 requiring immediate stoppage of the business of the Appellant. Admittedly No Objection Certificate has not been obtained from the Environment Protection Agency ("EPA") for carrying out the poultry farm business and despite service of notice on the Appellant he did not appear in the proceedings leading up to the EPO. Although, the learned counsel has denied receipt of any notice to him which is not sufficient to refute the record, and the order of the EPA which states that notices were issued, service was effected but he opted not to appear. The record also shows that even for the purposes of the appeal in order to effectuate and ensure the attendance of the Appellant before the Tribunal warrant for his arrest was issued on the basis of which the Appellant appeared before the Tribunal. Therefore the Appellant's contention that he was not served with the notices or that he had no knowledge of the EPO is without any basis. We also note that the Appellant was present on 18.1.2011 when he received copy of the complaint and he filed his reply wherein he claimed that there was a separate room in the poultry farm for keeping the litter and the dead birds/chicks were being burnt in the furnace. He also stated that the farm is at a reasonable distance from the populated area. On the basis of his statement the Tribunal ordered inspection of the premises and required two witnesses of the locality to verify the reply of the Appellant. The inspection took place on 11.2.2011 by Inam ul Haq, Inspector, EPA, Rawalpindi and District Officer (Environment), Rawalpindi. Workers of the poultry farm were present at the site and in their presence report was prepared. In terms of the report there were heaps of burnt poultry waste near the poultry farm. There was no soakage pit available and the c workers used the jungle as toilet.
The distance of nearby houses is approximately 50 meters from the poultry farm and the water channel runs through the farm sheds. On the basis of the said report, the Tribunal passed its order on 23.2.2011 in the presence of the Appellant who apparently was unable to refute any of the observations made by the inspection team on 11.2.2011. The presence of the Appellant during the time of the inspection is not relevant or material to the case as the fundamental objective of the inspection was to determine the condition of D the poultry farm, its distance from any residential area and to ascertain whether there was a proper waste management system. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been made out in the impugned order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the Tribunal.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal is dismissed.