Lahore High court "Temporary Stop to Punjab Government's Motorcycle Plan Until Environmental Study"
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس کیس کے جواب میں درج ذیل ہدایات جاری کی ہیں۔
1. طلباء کو موٹرسائیکلیں فراہم کرنے کی مجوزہ اسکیم کو باضابطہ طور پر نافذ کرنے اور پیٹرول موٹرسائیکلوں کی تقسیم سے پہلے، محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ کو قانون کے مطابق منظوری کے لیے صوبائی ایجنسی کو ماحولیاتی اثرات کا اندازہ (EIA) جمع کرانا چاہیے۔
2. صوبائی ایجنسی سے منظوری ملنے پر، اسکیم آگے بڑھ سکتی ہے۔
3. صوبائی ایجنسی کو جمع کرائے گئے EIA کا جائزہ لینے کے لیے نجی اور آزاد مشیروں کو شامل کرنے کا کام سونپا گیا ہے۔ ان کی سفارشات کی بنیاد پر، صوبائی ایجنسی اسکیم کے لیے منظوری دے گی یا انکار کرے گی۔
4. آزاد کنسلٹنٹس کی طرف سے لگائی جانے والی فیس محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ کو برداشت کرنا ہوگی۔
5. جب تک صوبائی ایجنسی کی طرف سے منظوری نہیں دی جاتی، اسکیم کو التواء میں رکھا جائے گا۔ محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ اور ماس ٹرانزٹ کو ہدایت کی جاتی ہے کہ وہ اس مدت کے دوران اسکیم کے نفاذ کے سلسلے میں مزید کوئی قدم نہ اٹھائے۔
کیس کی مرکزی کہانی حکومت پنجاب کی جانب سے طلباء کو موٹرسائیکل فراہم کرنے کی تجویز کردہ اسکیم کے گرد گھومتی ہے۔ اس اسکیم نے ماحولیاتی آلودگی اور زندگی کے حق پر اس کے ممکنہ اثرات کے بارے میں خدشات کو جنم دیا، جیسا کہ پاکستان کے آئین میں بیان کیا گیا ہے۔ عدالت نے پنجاب کے ٹریفک پیٹرن میں بڑی تعداد میں موٹرسائیکلوں کو متعارف کرانے کے منفی ماحولیاتی اثرات پر زور دیا، ان رپورٹوں کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے جو گاڑیوں کے اخراج کو آلودگی میں اہم کردار ادا کرنے کی نشاندہی کرتی ہیں۔
عدالت نے پنجاب انوائرنمنٹل پروٹیکشن ایکٹ 1997 کا حوالہ دیا، جو کہ ایسے منصوبوں کو شروع کرنے سے پہلے صوبائی ایجنسی سے منظوری حاصل کرنا لازمی قرار دیتا ہے جو ماحولیاتی اثرات کا سبب بن سکتے ہیں۔ اس نے نوٹ کیا کہ محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ نے زیر بحث اسکیم کے لیے ان تقاضوں کی تعمیل نہیں کی تھی۔
اس کے جواب میں، عدالت نے محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ کو ہدایت کی کہ اس اسکیم کو نافذ کرنے سے پہلے منظوری کے لیے صوبائی ایجنسی کو ماحولیاتی اثرات کا اندازہ (EIA) جمع کرایا جائے۔ اس نے EIA کا جائزہ لینے کے لیے نجی اور آزاد کنسلٹنٹس کی شمولیت کو مزید لازمی قرار دیا، ان کی فیسیں محکمہ ٹرانسپورٹ کے ذریعے برداشت کی جائیں گی۔ جب تک منظوری نہیں مل جاتی، اسکیم کو التواء میں رکھا جانا ہے۔
مجموعی طور پر، یہ کیس ماحولیاتی تشخیص کی اہمیت کو واضح کرتا ہے اور ایسے منصوبوں کو شروع کرنے سے پہلے متعلقہ قوانین کی تعمیل کرتا ہے جن کے ماحولیاتی اثرات اہم ہوسکتے ہیں۔
The main story of the case revolves around a scheme proposed by the Government of Punjab to provide motorcycles to students. This scheme raised concerns about environmental pollution and its potential impact on the right to life, as outlined in the Constitution of Pakistan. The court emphasized the adverse environmental effects of introducing a large number of motorcycles into Punjab's traffic pattern, citing reports indicating vehicular emissions as a major contributor to pollution.
The court referred to the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, which mandates obtaining approval from the Provincial Agency before commencing projects that may cause adverse environmental effects. It noted that the Transport Department had not complied with these requirements for the scheme in question.
In response, the court directed the Transport Department to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the Provincial Agency for approval before implementing the scheme. It further mandated the engagement of private and independent consultants to review the EIA, with their fees to be borne by the Transport Department. Until approval is granted, the scheme is to be held in abeyance.
Overall, the case underscores the importance of environmental assessment and compliance with relevant laws before initiating projects that could have significant environmental impacts.
In this case, it's not about one party "winning" over the other in a traditional sense. Instead, the court issued a judgment that outlined specific directives regarding the proposed scheme to provide motorcycles to students by the Government of Punjab. The judgment focused on ensuring compliance with environmental regulations and protecting the right to life as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan.
Therefore, the outcome of the case can be seen as a decision by the court to prioritize environmental concerns and legal compliance, rather than favoring one party over another.
The scheme to provide motorcycles to students proposed by the Government of Punjab had several disadvantages, as highlighted in the court proceedings:
1. **Environmental Pollution**: Introducing a large number of motorcycles into Punjab's traffic pattern would increase vehicular emissions, contributing to environmental pollution. This could have adverse effects on air quality and public health.
2. **Impact on Right to Life**: The scheme's potential environmental consequences raised concerns about its impact on the right to life, as guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan. Poor air quality resulting from increased pollution could pose health risks to residents.
3. **Non-compliance with Environmental Regulations**: The Transport Department had not conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or obtained approval from the Provincial Agency as required by the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997. This lack of compliance with environmental regulations was a significant disadvantage of the scheme.
4. **Legal Liability**: Proceeding with the scheme without fulfilling the legal requirements outlined in the Act could expose the government officials responsible for its implementation to legal liability and potential penalties under environmental laws.
Overall, the scheme's disadvantages included its potential adverse environmental impact, infringement on the right to life, and non-compliance with relevant environmental regulations.
Form No:HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No.
W.P. No.30823/2024
Ch. Rizwan Ali Raa
Versus
Government of Punjab & others
S.No.of
order/
Proceeding
Date of
order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
necessary.
17.05.2024 M/s. Mian Ejaz Latif, M. Azhar Siddique and Ch.
Arshad Gulzar, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mrs. Hina Hafeez Ullah Ishaq and Syed Kamal Ali
Haider, Advocates/Members of the Judicial Water and
Environmental Commission.
Mr. Asad Ali Bajwa, Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. Hassan Ejaz Cheema, Assistant Advocate General
with Dr. Ahmad Javed Qazi, Secretary Transport and M.
Nawaz Manik, Legal Advisor for EPA.
This order will also decide connected W.P.No.
30822/2024 as similar questions of law have been raised in
these petitions.
2.
Notices were issued and report has been filed by the
learned Members of the Judicial Water and Environmental
Commission regarding a scheme sought to be launched by the
Government of Punjab to provide motorcycles to the students.
Under the scheme the proposal is to provide 23000 bikes to the
students of which 19000 would be petrol bikes (The Scheme).
This raised concerns regarding environment pollution and
adverse impact on the environment by induction of a large
number of motorcycles in the traffic pattern of Punjab. It is
made clear that this issue has engaged the attention of this
Court purely because of environmental concerns which strictly
affects the right to life enshrined in Article 9 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Two reports
have been filed on behalf of Transport & Masstransit
Department, Government of Punjab. To reiterate, this Court is
W.P. No.30823/2024
2
not concerned with the other aspects of the scheme which is
within the domain of the Government but merely relates to the
impact on environment by the launch of the scheme. Different
applications were filed which have now been converted into
instant constitutional petitions and which are being heard and
disposed of together.
3.
Learned Advocate General Punjab on the last date of
hearing as well as learned Assistant Advocate General have
been heard today as also the Secretary Transport and
Masstransit Department, Government of Punjab have been
heard in the matter. There are various reports placed on the
record filed by the Urban Unit, Government of Punjab as well
as World Bank and other Multilateral Agencies which establish
in different studies that of the various factors vehicular
emission constitutes the largest proportion of pollution being
caused. Out of the entire bulk of vehicular emission, the major
contributor to pollution is the emission by motorcycles.
Therefore, it should be of deep concern for any reasonable
Government to engage in a priorly conducted feasibility study
regarding impact of induction of thousands of motorcycles
into the mainstream traffic of Punjab.
4.
The Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 (“Act,
1997”) assumes significance in this regard. Adverse
environmental effect has been defined as:
“(i)
“adverse environmental effect” means impairment
of, or damage to, the environment and includes—
(a)
impairment of, or damage to, human health and
safety or to biodiversity or property;
(b)
pollution; and
(c)
any adverse environmental effect as may be specified
in the regulations;”
5.
Project in the Act, 1997 means:
“project” means any activity, plan, scheme, proposal or
undertaking involving any change in the environment and
includes–
(a) construction by use of buildings or other
works;
(b) construction or use of roads or other transport
W.P. No.30823/2024
3
systems;
(c) construction or operation of factories or other
installations:
(d) mineral prospecting, mining, quarrying, stone-
crushing, drilling and the like;
(e) any change of land use or water use; and
(f) alteration, expansion, repair, decommissioning or
abandonment of existing buildings or other works,
roads or other transport systems, factories or other
installations;”
6.
Lastly, proponent has been defined as:
“proponent” means the person who proposes or
intends to undertake a project;
7.
A cumulative reading of these definitions would clearly
show that a project would mean any activity, plan, scheme or
undertaking involving any change in the environment.
Doubtless, the scheme being proposed by the Government is
such a scheme and would involve a change in the environment
and there can be no two opinions about this aspect. The launch
of the scheme would be caught by the definition of adverse
environmental effect and would cause pollution and
impairment of human health and safety. Since the scheme is
definitely a project within the meaning of the Act, 1997, this
would trigger Section 12 which provides that:
“12. Initial environmental examination and environmental
impact assessment.– (1) No proponent of a project shall commence
construction or operation unless he has filed with the Provincial
Agency an initial environmental examination or where the project
is likely to cause an adverse environmental effect, an environmental
impact assessment, and has obtained from the Provincial Agency
approval in respect thereof.
(2) The Provincial Agency shall–
(a) review the initial environmental examination and accord
its approval, or require submission of an environmental
impact assessment by the proponent; or
(b) review the environmental impact assessment and
accord its approval subject to such conditions as it may
deem fit to impose, or require that the environmental impact
assessment be re-submitted after such modifications as may
be stipulated, or reject the project as being contrary to
environmental objectives.
(3) Every review of an environmental impact assessment shall be
carried out with public participation and no information will be
disclosed during the course of such public participation which
relates to–
(i)
trade, manufacturing or business activities, processes or
techniques of a proprietary nature, or financial, commercial,
W.P. No.30823/2024
4
scientific or technical matters which the proponent has requested
should remain confidential, unless for reasons to be recorded in
writing, the Director - General of the Provincial Agency is of the
opinion that the request for confidentiality is not well-founded or
the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the possible
prejudice to the competitive position of the project or its
proponent; or
(ii)
International relations, national security or maintenance of law
and order, except with the consent of the Government; or
(iii) matters covered by legal professional privilege.
(4) The Provincial Agency shall communicate its approval or
otherwise within a period of four months from the date the initial
environmental examination or environmental impact assessment is
filed complete in all respects in accordance with the prescribed
procedure, failing which the initial environmental examination or,
as the case may be, the environmental impact assessment shall be
deemed to have been approved, to the extent to which it does not
contravene the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations
made thereunder.
(5) Subject to sub-section (4) the Government may in a particular
case extend the aforementioned period of four months if the nature
of the project so warrants.
(6) The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) shall
apply to such categories of projects and in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(7) The Provincial Agency shall maintain separate Registers for
initial environmental examination and environmental impact
assessment project, which shall contain brief particulars of each
project and a summary of decisions taken thereon, and which shall
be open to inspection by the public at all reasonable hours and the
disclosure of information in such Registers shall be subject to the
restrictions specified in sub-section (3).”
8.
The provisions set out above is couched in mandatory
terms and prohibits any project to commence unless an
environmental impact assessment has been filed with the
Provincial Agency whose approval has been obtained in this
regard. This, a fortiori, applies to a scheme or undertaking by
the Government and is of the essence of a responsible
Government. This has admittedly not been done by the
Transport Department while formulating the scheme and
obtaining its approval from the Government. The Secretary
present in the Court does not dispute the applicability of the
Act, 1997 under these circumstances. Finally, section 19 makes
it an offence for any Government Agency to proceed with the
implementation of the scheme without the approval of the
Provincial Agency and the head of that Government Agency
W.P. No.30823/2024
5
will be directly liable for being punished under the provisions
of the Act, 1997. Therefore, it can be culled out from the above
narration of the provisions of Act, 1997 that an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) as a sine qua non was to be submitted
by the Transport Department with regard to the scheme to the
Provincial Agency and an approval had to be obtained priorly
before the scheme was formally launched. This can still be
done by the Transport Department which is under obligation
to do so.
9.
In view of the above, these petitions are disposed of
with a direction that before the scheme is formally put into
effect and the distribution of petrol motorcycles takes place, an
EIA shall be submitted to the Provincial Agency for its
approval in accordance with law. Once that approval has been
granted, this scheme may proceed ahead. It is further made
clear that the Provincial Agency shall engage private and
independent consultants to review the EIA so submitted and
thereafter proceed to grant or refuse approval on the basis of
the recommendations. The fee of the independent consultants
shall be borne by the Transport Department. Until the
approval is granted, the scheme shall be held in abeyance and
no further steps shall be taken by the Transport and
Masstransit Department with regard to the scheme.
(SHAHID KARIM)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting.
JUD
Comments
Post a Comment