This order decides upon the issues raised in the instant Environmental Appeal No. 1441/2014 filed by Sajjad Ahmad Khan etc. along with connected Environmental Appeal No.1436/2014 filed by the Government of Punjab through Director General, Environment Protection Agency , Lahore ("EPA"). Both the appeals impugn order dated 6.5.2014 passed by the Punjab Environmental Tribunal ("Tribunal ") wherein show cause notice dated 18.6.2012 and cancellation of environmental approval order dated 5.7.2013 against Respondent No.1 was set aside. Along with these appeals, W.P. No. 1998/2015 filed by the Appellants seeking a direction to the Respondents to act strictly in accordance with law has also been heard.
2. The basic facts are that Respondent No.1 established a chemical plant in an agricultural area at Pir Tatum, 38 KM Multan Bahwalpur Road, Multan to produce Sulphuric Acid ("Plant "). The EPA granted approval for construction as well as for the operations on 18.4.201 1 and 12.4.2012 respectively . The Plant was constructed and became functional. The EPA carried out a site inspection and found that the Plant A was violating the terms of its approval, hence issued show cause notice dated 18.6.2012 after which it cancelled its approval on 5.7.2013. These orders were challenged before the Tribunal by Respondent No.1, whereby the Tribunal set aside the show cause notice as well as the cancellation order vide its decision dated 6.5.2014 which has been impugned in the two appeals before the Court. Through W.P. No.1998/2015, the Petitioners state that they have complained against the establishment of the Plant as it has, been set up in an agricultural area and it creates acid mist which is hazardous to the people residing in the area as well as to the environment which primarily is an agricultural area.
3. As per the order sheet, these cases have been pending since 2014. Vide order dated 6.4.2016, the entire record of the EPA was called for including the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") and the Environmental Management Plan to assess the allegations narrated in both appeals against the Plant. Thereafter vide order dated 19.5.2016 an Environmental consultant was appointed by the Court to verify whet her the Respondent company is compliant with the environment approvals granted. The report was submitted on 15.1t .2016 against which objections were filed on 20.9.2017. Vide order dated 24.10.2017 the objections were heard and the Court directed that the Consultant revisit the Plant and ascertain and verify whether the Plant is compliant with all 22 conditions imposed by the. EPA and whether emissions being caused by the Plant are as per the desired standards.
Thereafter vide order dated 17.4.2019 on the report filed by then Consultant after revisit to the Plant arguments were heard at length. At this point it is important to note that even the Government of Punjab has filed an appeal in which they state that the land on which the Plant has been constructed is agricultural land and has not been converted for industrial use. The Court was also informed that there are no standards on the basis of which the EPA is able to determine whether any air or water pollution is being caused and more importantly whether the acid mist emitted from the Plant being dangerous to the population residing nearby . On 4.11.2019 a detailed report was submitted by the Government of Punjab on the issue of conversion of land. In the meantime it was confirmed that there are no specific standards for a sulphuric acid plant as per international practice. Hence both the parties before the Court being the complainant in the W.P. and the Plant itself were asked to provide international guidelines and standards with reference to sulphuric acid plants and acid mist. These have been duly filed by the parties and the representative of the EPA have acknowledged that they themselves have not considered any or specific international standards with reference to the sulphuric acid plants and acid mist.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also brought the attention of the Court to the fact that the EPA granted approval for construction as well as for the operations on 18.4.201 1 and 12.4.2012 respectively which has now expired and in terms of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 ("Act"), the Respondent company is required to re-initiate the process of getting the permission afresh. Therefore he stated that the issues raised before this Court can be re-visited by the EPA with specific emphasis on the standa rds and guidelines required for sulphuric acid plants as well as the issues raised by the Government of Punjab with reference to the conversion of land. He stated that these are all factual matters which will take time and that the EPA is the competent body to look into the same before it can grant any further approvals. Learned Law Officer along with Nabila Khalid, AD Legal, EP A and all the parties before the Court agreed with the request of the learned counsel for the Respondents.
5. The Petitioners in W.P. No.1998/2015 stated that they have been pursuing this matter since the approvals were granted as they reside in the area and have agricultural land in the area. Further state that not only the people of the area but also their crops and the land is being adversely affected by the acid mist which fact has not been taken into consideration by the EPA at the time of according the environmental approval. Even with respect to the mitigation measures proposed by the EPA and the consultant he stated that nothing was specifically done to address the acid mist gases which are emitted on a large scale by the Plant when it is functional. Therefore the counsel stated that proper guidelines and standards must be adopted in the first instance before granting any permission to the Respondent Company . Learned counsel for the Respondent Company/Plant stated that the Company has invested a large amount of money in the establishment of the Plant and therefore will make every possible effort to ensure that proper standards are adopted and that it is compliant with the same before it attains any approval and commences operation.
6. In the light of what has been stated it is noted that since the approvals granted by the EPA have expired, both the appeals have become infructuous and that the prayer in the WP will now be taken up by the EPA if and when the process for issuance of permission to commence operations of the Plant begins. In the meantime the EPA should set proper standards for sulphuric acid Plants and acid mist gases emitted to ensure that international standards are followed to protect the environment.
7. Hence both the appeals and W rit Petition are disposed of accordingly .