This appeal is preferred against decision dated 02.11.2017 for granting of Environmental Approval by Director General EPA to respondent No. 2 for installation of distillery unit by Messrs Ramzan Sugar Mills situated at 26-km Jhang Road Chiniot. Learned counsel submits that appellant is presently residing at Khan Da Kot, post office Thatha Fateh Ali Tehsil Bhawana District Chiniot for last 60 years and inhabitants of area are living miserable life due to operational activities of Ramzan Sugar Mills. The sugar mills dispose off its wastewater in open land due to which ground water is highly polluted. Appellant and other residents raised voice against the unit before EPA but nothing was done. It is further argued that EPA passed EPO dated 03.09.2018 but the directions of EPO were never complied with and now respondent No. 2 is installing distillery plant which will produce 33000 tons of super fine/fuel ethanol (CHOH) using molasses as the major raw material. Respondent No. 2 applied for Environmental Approval along with EIA report and other relevant documents to respondent No. 1 on 05.06.2017 and respondent No. 1 under political pressure and direction of Chief Minister Punjab issued Environmental Approval to the respondent No. 2; that EPA did not act upon in accordance with law and a fake public hearing was made with connivance of sugar mill in sheer violation of environmental laws. On 24.10.2017 appellant moved application to Secretary EPD Lahore and voiced his grievance and in last week of December 2018 respondent No. 2 started construction work of his distillery plant. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that on 26.12.2018 he visited the office of respondent No. 3 appraised him that respondent No. 3 has started construction of his distillery plant without environmental approval. On 27.12.2018 appellant moved an application to DCO Chiniot and on 17.01.2019 appellant moved an application to respondent No. 1 for cancellation of environmental approval but nothing is being done. Learned counsel submits that respondent is also constructing pipe line of approximately 17 km long for25 disposal of its wastewater which is passing through the populated area and highly dangerous to the appellant and other inhabitants, therefore decision of EP A regarding environmental approval may kindly be set aside.
2. On other hand Muhammad Yasin Hatif learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that EPA has passed a lawful order . Submits that there are numerous conditions and the impugned decision is in respect of construction phase only. Further argued that appeal is time barred and appellant cannot challenge the impugn order since he did not join the public hearing conducted on 12.10.2017 at 10:00 a.m. at Chanab Banquet Hall Faisalabad Road Chiniot. Further argued that section 22(1) of the PEPA 1997 (as amended in 2012) mandates that "any person aggrieved by any order or direction by Provincial Agency under any provision of this Act and Rules or Regulations may prefer an appeal with the Environmental Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the impugned order or direction to such person."
3. Heard. Record perused. The appellant is not in communication of the impugned order rather he is not even the addressee of this impugned order directly or indirectly . He was supposed to be party only at a time when public hearing was conducted on 12.10.2017, but the present appellant did not show his concern and lost the opportunity of being party to the proceedings or impugned order . The appellant has also an alternate remedy under section 21(3)(b) of PEPA 1997 (as amended in 2012) as if violation of some environmental laws causing adverse environmental effects are there due to operation of the unit of respondent No 2 in the area he may file private Complaint. He requests to dismiss the appeal.
4. Respondent No. 2 was granted NOC on 02.11.2017 for construction phase. Appellant kept mum and after such unexplained delay has filed this appeal.
6(sic.) Section 22 of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (as amended in 2012) is reproduced as under:-
22. Appeals to the Environmental Tribunal .---(1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of the Provincial Agency under any provision of this Act and rules or regulations made thereunder may prefer an appeal with the Environmental Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the impugned order or direction to such person .
(2) An appeal to the Environmental Tribunal shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
7. This Act gives right of appeal to a person who is communicated with the order or direction issued by the EPA.
The language of this section is clearly specified that such person to whom order or direction is communicated may file appeal within 30 days from date of communication. It is the case of the appellant that they had not attended public gathering for EIA, so they were never associated with IEE&EIA process under IEE&EIA Regulations 2000. In this eventuality alternate remedy was available under section 21(3) of Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (as amended in 2012) which is reproduced as under;
21. Jurisdiction and powers of Environmental T ribunals.--
(1) ..............................
(2) ..............................
(3) An Environmental Tribunal shall not take cognizance of any offence triable under subsection (2) except on a complaint in writing by
(a) the Provincial Agency or any Government Agency or local council; and
(b) any aggrieved person who has given notice of not less than thirty days to the Provincial Agency of the alleged contravention and of his intention to make a complaint to the Environmental Tribunal.
(4) .....................................
(5) .....................................
(6) .....................................
(7) .....................................
8. The appellant is to prefer this appeal within 30 days from impugned decision. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not given cogent explanation for this amount of delay in filing this appeal. This tribunal has held in 2019 CLD 208 titled " Faisal Iqbal v . Environmental Protection Authority through Director General EP A and others " as follows; ----S. 22---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)---Appeal to Environmental Tribunal---Delay , condonation of--- Appeal under S.22 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 was to be filed within 30 days, was filed after more than two months from passing of impugned order along with application for condonation of delay under S. 5 of Limitation Act, 1908--V alidity---When the relevant law (S. 29(2) of the Act) itself had prescribed period of limitation the benefit of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was expressly excluded--- Benefit of S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was not available in the present case---Application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was dismissed being not maintainable and appeal was dismissed being barred by time.
9. Therefore this Tribunal is of the view that the appellant were not the addressee of the impugned decision. This appeal therefore stands dismissed being not maintainable. However appellant can file a private Complaint before this Tribunal or he can challenge the decision of Director General EPA on his application for cancellation of NOC. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent will not put his unit in operation unless and until approval for operational phase is granted. Director General EPA is directed to decide application for cancellation of environmental approval dated 17.01.2019 available at page 24 received by Director General vide diary No. 336/D(PEC) dated 26.10.2017 within 30 days . Copy of this judgment is transmitted to Director General EP A for strict compliance.