KARACHI, Dec 2 The provincial Environmental Protection Tribunal has directed the alleged violators of Section 12 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, to submit an environmental impact assessment (EIA) report of a commercial high-rise built at the seafront in Clifton to the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa).

The tribunal headed by Ashraf Jahan comprises technical and legal experts Dr Samiuzzaman and Abdul Karim Memon. Jabir Ahmed, a respondent, an advocate representing another respondent, Nadeem Riaz, Naeem A. Mughal, Sepa Director-General, and Abdul Maroof, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, appeared before the tribunal when it resumed the case proceedings on Wednesday.

In view of the statements given by two respondents that the proponents of the project will seek the mandatory environmental clearance from Sepa, the tribunal gave them two months to submit the EIA report.

In the previous hearings, the counsel for the respondents had maintained that the proponent of the project had not violated PEPA, 1997 or any other relevant law as the construction work on the project had started in 1992, ie before the promulgation of the environmental act. As such, they argued, they were not required to submit an EIA report to any government agency.

However, they expressed their willingness to submit an EIA report to Sepa even now when the project was in an operational phase provided they were not be charged with having committed an offence in the first place.

On November 10, Sepa had submitted before the tribunal that the owner and developers of the Harbour Front building had executed the project without a mandatory NOC acquired from it.

In its written complaint, Sepa through its attorney Abdul Maroof submitted that the proponent and developers of the high-rise building had violated Section 12 of the PEPA, 1997, which stated that “nobody shall commence the construction or operation of a project without filing an initial environmental examination or an environmental impact assessment report to Sepa and obtaining a no-objection certificate from Sepa.”

On November 25, the defence counsel had argued that more than 80 per cent buildings in the city had been built after 1997 without acquiring a clearance from Sepa. He said that Sepa complaint against the respondents was tantamount to singling out his client.

Rejecting the submission of a post-construction EIA report by the builders, Sepa had earlier pleaded that since the violation had already been committed, the court should proceed the case on merit.

While adjourning the hearing to February 3, the tribunal told the Sepa attorney that the case was not being disposed of and the builders would ensure compliance of the environmental laws by submitting an EIA report to Sepa within two months.

Ice factory case

Hearing another petition filed against the functioning of an ice factory in a residential area, the tribunal allowed time to Sepa for submitting its comments on the complaint.

The tribunal also directed the complainant, Sarfaraz A. Khan, son of Ghulam Khan, and the Sepa director-general, one of the respondents in the case, to submit their comments on the factory owner's reply received by the tribunal.

The next hearing will be held on December 21.

In the meantime, prosecutor Abdul Maroof requested the tribunal to withdraw or vacate the names of Sindh chief secretary and secretary of the provincial environment and alternative energy department from the list of respondents, arguing that the two persons had not violated Section 11 of PEPA, 1997.

Mr Maroof also submitted a letter from the department's secretary authorising the prosecutor to represent him in the matter.

The complainant had approach the EPT stating that the factory namely Pakistan Ice Factory had started production on a small scale a few years back and it had now been extended and upgraded for production on a large scale, causing pollution in the locality.

He cited fears of leakage of ammonia gas, noise pollution, environmental pollution, etc, as the problems and risks created by the factory's operation. He urged either closure or shifting of the factory to save the residents of the neighbourhood from the hazards.