LAHORE, Oct 14: The Lahore High Court on Friday indicated that it would prescribe the procedure for the functioning of environmental tribunals. The court remarked on a writ petition which challenged the vires of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, that it would resolve the question if the tribunals were to be regulated under the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code.

The court adjourned the hearing after Advocate Ali Sabtain Fazli contended that the tribunals had to be regulated by the CrPC and not the CPC.

Mr Fazli submitted that the act provided for the environmental tribunal powers like that of a court of sessions in terms of the CrPC. But as an appellate forum, it were to be governed by the CPC. The act also provided that in all other matters, where no procedures were stipulated, the CPC would be applicable.

According to the counsel, no conviction was possible in the absence of the CrPC provisions. He submitted that the law provided for a fine up to Rs1 million for the first offence and 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.

He submitted that environmental courts and tribunals lacked a genuine legal cover which did not give them the power to take judicial cognizance of offences under the law.

He submitted that the tribunals neither met the requirement of functioning as tribunals nor qualified to proceed as courts subordinate to the superior judiciary. According to him, a judicial forum which the 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. In such a case, the two non-judiciary members could take a decision against the chairperson who was a judge.

The counsel stated that the constitution provided for courts to be subordinate to high courts. But in case of tribunals, only the chairman was to be appointed in consultation with the provincial chief justice and the remaining two members were to be nominated by the government. Such tribunals were to pass orders by majority and they could overrule the opinion of the chairman which was in conflict with the spirit of the constitution.

He 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. As for the procedures given in the law, Mr Fazli submitted that the act provided for the environmental tribunal powers like that of a court of sessions in terms of the CrPC. But as an appellate forum, the tribunal would be governed by the CPC.