Through this appeal the appellant assailed the EPO dated 18.05.2017 passed by Deputy Director (R&D. Brief facts of the case are that EPA received a complaint filed by Mr. Syed Baseer Zafar and other residents of Kharota Syedan Sialkot against improper dumping of solid waste by Cantonment Board Sialkot near Kharota Syedan Sialkot. This complaint was against the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Cantonmen t Board Sialkot to initiate action under section 16 of PEPA 1997 (as amended in 2012) with the allegation that Cantonment Board Sialkot is dumping solid waste adjacent to residential areas causing adverse environment effect as defined in section 2 of the Act. Site was visited on 23.01.2016 and in the SIR dated 26.01.2016 it was observed that locality is residential in nature and the dumping site is adjacent to the residences. The trollies of Cantonment Board, Sialkot were throwing waste. It is further added that there are 02 fish ponds adjacent to dumping site controlled by Cantonment Board, Sialkot.
2. Notice hearing was given for 13.12.2016. It was replied by appellant through Annexure-G is that Legal Advisor is not available and request to fix for hearing in fiat week of April.' But case was fixed for 23.02.2017. On 14.02.2017 again written request was made to adjourn the hearing for 1st week of April. Second notice of haring was given to appellant. On 28.03.2016 the representative of the CEO attended the proceedings and submitted authority letter , reply (EPA is denying its receiving). Learned counsel for the appellant submits that again requested that legal advisor is not available, is on Umrah and sought adjournment. The request of adjourned was made to give date in the first week of April 2017. The copy of the application is annexed as Annexure-G with the appeal.
3. It is the case of the appellant that much before the case fixed another request for, adjournment through courier service was made to respondent No, 2 again for adjournment for hearing in first week of April 2017. That request is again annexed with memo of appeal as Annexure-H/1 . Thereafter the respondent No, 2 passed the EPO on 18.05.2017 . That order was received by the appellant on 13.07.2017 and present appeal was filed on 09.07.2017 .
The appellant has also annexed the receiving of the EPO annexed with memo as Annexure-H/2.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one point while arguing this appeal that the appellant was condemned unheard before passing of the impugned order (EPO) was passed. He has placed reliance PLD 1965 SC 90 title "The University of Dacca etc. v. Zakir Ahmed". Learned Counsel submits that action initiated by the agency is illegal, void and speaks volume of the misuse and abuse of authority giving rise to grave miscarriage of justice and utter defiance and violation of Principle of "Audi Alteram Partem ". He placed reliance on PLD 2014 Supreme Court 585 and 2004 MLD 1377 .
5. On the other hand learned Law Officer and respondent supported the impugned order and submits that adjournment was made only to delay the matter .
6. Appellant was condemned unheard. Environmental Protection Agency did not act properly and with due diligence. They could have easily heard the appellant. The appellant was not served at all. Audi Alteram Partem in simple words means 'hear the other side'. It is the most fundamental principle of Justice which states that no one ought to be judged without been given an opportunity to be heard. Reliance can also be made to 2014 CLC 1259 , 1993 SCMR 122, 1986 SCMR 962 and 2006 SCMR (sic.). Even the impugned order was passed on 18.05.2017 after the date of request of appellant for adjournment i,e, first week of April 2017. The Agency could have heard the appellant easily in this situation. Therefor e I inclined to allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order/ EPO and the matter is remanded to EPA for decisio n afresh before 30th of April 2018 after hearing the appellant. The EPA will afford only one opportunity of hearing to the appellant and will decide the matter on way of the other positively within time frame given. Copy of this Judgment be communicated to Director General EPA immediately for compliance.