0
LAHORE, July 27: The Lahore High Court was told on Wednesday that the Pakistan Environment Protection Act adopted by the National Assembly in December 1997 lacked procedural discipline and had lacunae in rules and regulations.
Advocate Ali Sabtain Fazli deposed that even the provisions on the formation of environmental courts and tribunals lacked a genuine legal cover and with the drafting of the law in its present form, the objective to taking the cognizance of offences under the law, was a remote possibility.
Advocate Fazli, who filed a writ petition on behalf of a tannery at Muridke against the decision of the Punjab Environmental Protection Agency (PEPA) which instituted a case in the high court, was allowed by the court to withdraw his petition to file an amended version in view of the discussion on the law taking place in the court.
Advocate Khwaja Akram, who was contesting the PEPA action on behalf of another industry, decided to stick to his present position. The case will now come up for hearing on July 29.
ENVIRONMENT COURT: Advocate Fazli submitted that a judicial forum which the environmental act had envisaged, was neither a court nor a tribunal as the requirements for both of them had not been met.
He stated that decisions by the tribunal, headed by a retired or sitting high court judge with two experts to be appointed by the federal government, was to be by majority.
A judge was under the discipline of the judiciary whereas other two members, were under no such discipline. In such a case, the two non-judiciary members could take a decision against the chairperson who was a judge.
Citing the Mehram Ali case, he submitted that a court of competent jurisdiction had to be under the discipline of the judiciary and its decision had to be judicial. The environmental tribunals could in no legal terms be termed as a court of law and its decisions not judicial in character.
As for the proposition that they were not tribunals either, the counsel stated that tribunals were constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution and the act did not take into account this provision while enunciating the formation of tribunals.
PROCEDURE: As for the procedures given in the act, Mr Fazli submitted that the act provided for the environmental tribunal powers like that of a court of sessions in terms of the Criminal Procedure Code. But as an appellate forum, the tribunal would be governed by the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The act also provided that in all other matters, where no procedures were stipulated, the CPC would be applicable.
He submitted that no convictions were possible in the absence of the CrPC and the act was talking in terms of the CPC under which convictions were not provided. The law provided for a fine up to Rs1 million for the first offence and another fine of Rs1,000 a day for continued violation of the law. An imprisonment up to two years with or without fine, or both, was provided for the second offence. But punishment was practically not possible when CPC was to be applied on the judicial forum in matters where no rules had been framed.
RULES: He submitted that rules framed under the law in accordance with Section 33 which concerns regulation-making.
He submitted that regulations were framed for the purpose of implementation of the law in question. But the law said that the regulations would be governed by CrPC which was in conflict with the procedural regime itself.
