' The petitioner who is an Advocate of this Court, through this Constitutional petition, has sought a direction to respondents Nos.3, 4 and 6 to plant trees in the country; to impose a ban on the air- conditioners; refrigerators and deep-freezers which according to him, are causing environmental pollution
2. The parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos.3 and 4 are to the effect that forestry is basically a Provincial subject; that the Federal Government, had, however, imposed a ban on commercial exploitation of forests for a period of two years from 1993 to 1995 which was further extended till 1997; that the air-conditioners and refrigerators do not suck oxygen and spread nitrogen and that the Government has been encouraging maximum plantation through the Provincial Governments and is making every effort to protect this Ozone layer in terms of the Montreal Protocal.
3. Having gone through the comments, I am of the view that the Federal Government is indeed concerned about the issues which have been highlighted through this petition and is making efforts within the available means to protect the environment and the Ozone layer. So far as contention that air-conditioners and refrigerators and depleting oxygen is concerned, the same has been controverted by the respondents and there is no scientific material and record to disagree with the stand taken on this issue in the comments. In any case, this aspect may require factual inquiry which exercise cannot be undertaken in a Constitutional petition.
4. For what has been discussed above, the writ petition in so far as it relates to the direction for forestation is concerned, is disposed of with an observation that no further action is called for by this Court as the respondent-Government is itself keen to promote this. Coming to the question of ban on the air-conditioners and refrigerators because they allegedly deplete oxygen, besides the allegation having been controverted by the respondents, the prayer loses sight of the beneficial effect of these modern gadgets which are much more than its adverse effect if any. Their use prima facie does not infringe any fundamental right of the petitioner to warrant interference under Article.199 of the Constitution. I therefore, see no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.