KARACHI, Jan 23: The Sindh Environmental Protection Tribunal has raised several questions with regard to the performance of the provincial environmental watchdog and criticised its working in its detailed order through which it disposed of complaints against nine tanneries in Korangi.
On Jan 17, the three-member tribunal comprising its chairman, Shamsuddin Hisbani, and two members, Dr Samiuzzaman and Abdul Karim Memon, disposed of the nine complaints against the tanneries in question after the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency requested for the withdrawal of its complaints.
In its detailed order, the tribunal observed that after the statement of Sepa it has been established that the respondents had either changed or closed their business or had become members of the combined effluent treatment plant (CETP) set up by the Pakistan Tanners Association. The tribunal was of the opinion that there was no sufficient ground to proceed further.
In Sept 2003, Sepa wrote letters and issued show-cause notices to the respondents, asking them to comply with the country’s environmental laws and submit evidence of being members of the CETP. However, no steps were taken in this respect. In May 2005, Sepa issued Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs) under Section 16 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, directing the tanneries concerned to stop their production. The directives were, however, not complied with.
After a delay of about two years, Sepa filed complaints against polluting factories after it found that the samples taken by its monitoring team on May 10, 2007 were extremely toxic.
The director-general of Sepa had lodged nine identical complaints alleging that the tanneries in question were releasing extremely toxic industrial effluent without in-house treatment.
The tribunal, however, noted that Sepa did not take any step to implement the EPOs issued in May 2005 directing the tanneries in question to stop their production work immediately to save the environment from further damage.
It observed that instead of implementing the EPOs, the department concerned chose to remain silent allowing the violation of the order for a period of about two years.
The tribunal stated that although Sepa was vested with the power to restore the environment to the condition prior to such discharge and recover the reasonable costs of taking such measures from the respondent tanneries as arrears of land revenue, the agency took no such steps after passing the EPO.
The tribunal’s order went on to say that the question arises as to why the DG Sepa did not exercise the powers vested in him and allowed the violation and contravention of the provisions of the law for a period of more than four years when it is alleged that directions contained in the letter dated September 6, 2003 were not carried out by the respondent tanneries.
Referring to the act of sample collection by Sepa monitoring team, the tribunal order said that it was not understandable as to why such exercise was considered to be necessary after about two years of passing an order under Section 16 of the Act. “It seems that all this was done in haphazard manner ignoring altogether the provisions contained under Section 4, 5 and 7 of the environmental sample rules, 2001, in order to cover the delay in lodging of the complaint and show their efficiency,” the order said.
In any case, the unexplained delay of more than two years in filing of the complaint after passing of the EPO under Section 16 of the Act has not only damaged its very foundation but also reflects the conduct, performance and working of the department concerned, said the tribunal’s order.
The order also stated that the complaints filed by Sepa suffered from several legal defects.
The tribunal’s order said that the perusal of the case diaries revealed that several adjournments were sought on behalf of the agency during the period from September 29, 2008 to December 17, 2008, to enable it to submit an application for withdrawal of the complaints but the same were not placed before it.