Through this appeal the Appellant has impugned an Environmental Protection Order issued under section 21(2)(a) of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 on 06.05.2021, whereby the respondent-Director General, SEPA directed Appellant for immediate stoppage of the production process in its plant on violation of . sections 1 1 , 13 and 14 of Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014.
2. We heard learned counsel for Appellant is well as learned Assistant Director Law, SEPA Regional Office Hyderabad, who was assisted by the Deputy Director (Tech.)/In-charge Regional Office, Hyderabad for respondent that is Director General, Sindh Environmental Protection Agency .
3. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that the impugned Environmental Protection Order dated 6th May, 2021 is based on unfounded allegation that, un-treated waste water was being discharged into K.B feeder , while appellant company had already reduced the production to maintain the required Sindh Environmental Quality Standards level. He further contended that, section 7 of Environmental Samp les Rules, 2014, provides the procedure for taking samples for the purpose of analyzing in the laboratory . The section 7 as referred, is reproduced below for ready reference: "7. Procedure for taking samples: 1) An authorized person shall take samples as per functions provided under clause (h) of section 7 of the Act, in presence of the person from whom the sample is taken.
2) All such samples shall be labeled, and then effectively sealed and suitably marked and singed by the authorized person and person from whom the sample is taken.
3) Where the person from whom the sample is taken is not available or wilfully absents himself or is unknown at relevant time, or declines to add his seal or mark or signatures, the authorized person shall obtain, if possible, signatures on proforma of one or more independent witnesses in whose presence the sample has been taken.
4) The labeled and sealed sample shall contain a distinguishing number , a brief description of the sample, and place, date and time of taking the sample."
4. Learned counsel for appellant contend ed that, no details of collection of samples as well as laboratory report were provided to the appellant whereas sections 7, 8 and 9 of Environmental Samples Rules, 2014 provide the procedure of taking and dispatch of samples as well as the test and analysis of samples.
He argued that, along-with notices dated 09th March, 2021 and 12th March, 2021 sent by DD (Tech)/in-charge SEPA, Hyderabad for Personal Hearing, no laboratory report was sent to appellant and during Personal Hearing and the visit of SEPA team, the production was lying reduced to maintain the required SEQS level and same was conveyed to them on both occasions and the company also respondent DD (Tech)/in-charge Regional Office Hyderabad through letter_ dated 2nd April, 2021 clearly stating therein that, in compliance to the direction given by the Director General SEPA a 3rd party will be engaged for the purpose of Auditing the functioning of its waste water treatment facility within a period of 90 days, as about 6-8 weeks are required for increasing the bacterial culture in its full strength and thereafter auditor will take about one month to give his audit report. Continuing his arguments he elaborates that, plant manager was directed to ask third party contractor , who collects solid waste from the company , and also to get his license renewed form SEPA which was expired on 26th February , 2021, and subsequently the same has been renewed vide letter dated 12th April, 2021.
5. He also contended that the appellant had complied with all the directions of SEPA inspection team as well as of Director General SEPA, issued during the Personal Hearing but all of a sudden and shockingly appellant received impugned order dated 06th May, 2021 though there was no valid ground for the issuance of impugned EPO, however , the appellant has submitted a undertaking to this Honorable Tribunal that, appellant is going to engage a 3rd party for audit compliance within a time frame of 90 days and will submit audit report to SEPA and comply with all the directions , which may be issued by the SEPA and therefore, the impugn ed order dated 06th May, 2021 issued by Director General SEP A needs to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the law officer of the respondent-Director General SEPA filed objections on appeal under section 27 of SEP Act, 2014 and contended that, SEPA monitoring team visited Messrs Rafhan Maize Products company's unit namely Mehran Plant situated at K.B feeder road, Kotri, Jamsharo and found that, untreated waste water was being discharged into K.B feeder and in this connection the proponent was provided an opportunity of Personal Hearing under section 21(1) of SEP Act, 2014 scheduled on 18th March, 2021, but the representative of the unit failed to explain regarding non-operational of effluent treatment plant and therefore, directives were issued to take immediate measures, regarding proper functioning of ef fluent treatment plant.
A.D law continued his arguments that, in follow up the SEPA team along with plant manager visited the unit on 15- 04-2021 and found that treatment plant was not functional and untreated waste water was being discharged into K.B feeder therefore the team took samples on the same day from factory premises and same were sent to the laboratory for analysis and its results disclose that appellant does not meet defined SEQS levels, the results along with defined limits are: Sr. No Para-Meter SEQS limit Test results 01 P.H 6-9 9.8 02 Total suspended solid 200 280 03 Chemical Oxygen Demand 150 1250 04 Biological Oxygen Demand 80 355 the appellant showed an expired approva l/NOC, whereby appellant was directed to get it renewed immediately and the same was subsequently applied for renewal of approval.
7. Learned A.D law SEPA also contended that, treatment plant was not operational and was under maintenance, whereas appellant neither complied with direction of Director General SEPA given to him during Personal Hearing nor submitted any audit report before Agency as directed and therefore appellant was not granted 90 days' time.
He during his submissions, also request ed to depute any officer of the Tribunal to visit plant site immediately in presence of both parties as a large quant ity of untreated waste water is lying store d in premises of the factory and that is supposed to be discharged in the K.B feeder without treatment and that will pollute the water and will cause health problems to the people who consume such water and thus they will suffer an irreparable loss. He also submitted that the sludge of the waste water treatment is also stored in the crude fashion and that may also be dumped somewhere without proper disposal.
So it has been submitted that EPO was rightly issued as per provisions of section 21(2),(a) of SEP Act, 2014 on account of the violation of sections 41, 13 and 14 of such Act.
8. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record available, including laboratory reports. As per rule 7(1) of The Environm ental Samples Rules, 2014, "An authorized person shall take sample as per functions provided under clause (h) of section 7 of the Act, in presence of the person from whom sample is taken." Whereas Rule 7(3) reads as under: "Where the person from whom the sample is taken is not available, or wilfully absents himself or is unknown at the relevant time, or declines to add his seal or mark or signatures, the authorized person shall obtain, if possible, signatures, on the profarma of one or more independent witnesses in whose presence the sample has been taken".
In this appeal the authorization letter including Form B and From C as required under the Environmental Sample Rules are not available on record.
9. The perusal of available record reflects that, appellant party is willing to functionalize its Effluent Treatment Plant for which the appellant has already initiated corrective measure for such ETP. They have also provided same documents to show their commitment for functionalization of treatment plant with some time.
10. As appellant needs some time to get fully functional the Effluent Treatment Plant and they also ensured during proceedings that they will not discharge untreated waste water as their plant is already on circulation mode at 20 to 22% to meet the required SEQS limits, therefore, appellant is allowed to functionalize its waste water treatment plant within specified period of 90 days as they have already initiated such process since May , 2021.
10. However , the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency , as a statutory body for the implementation of Environmental laws, would have no restriction for routine inspection of appellant's plant but the development process of Effluent Treatment Plant shall not be unnecessarily hindered, Accordingly , both parties are directed to submit their progress report respectively , to this Tribunal fortnightly .
11. The above are the reasons of short order announced in open court on 22.06.2021 which is reproduced below: "For the reasons to be recorded, this appeal is disposed of by this short order . The respondent shall not take any coercive action on the production/manufacturing activity in the Factory of appellant subject to compliance of relevant provisions of Environmental laws by the appellant within a period of 90 days commencing from today and in the meantime, both the parties shall also comply with terms and conditions to be recorded in the detailed order/judgment".
Given under our hand and the seal of this Tribunal on 22.06.2021.