| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2120 2022 SLD 2120 2022 CLD 502 |
Sindh High Court
Appeal No. 9 of 2020, decision Dated: 9th November, 2021.
, JUSTICE (R) NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN, MEMBER LEGAL AND ABDUL RAUF MEMON, MEMBER TECHNICAL
Zubair Ahmed Abro for Appellants. Zain A. Soomro for
Respondent No. 2. Dr. Habib-ur-Rehman Solangi, Deputy Director Law along with Muhammad Azhar Khan, Deputy Director Technical for
Respondent No. 1. Shoaib Qureshi, Assistant Director Technical and Fur
Appeal No. 9 of 2020, decision Dated: 9th November, 2021.
, JUSTICE (R) NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARIF KHAN, MEMBER LEGAL AND ABDUL RAUF MEMON, MEMBER TECHNICAL
Zubair Ahmed Abro for Appellants. Zain A. Soomro for
Respondent No. 2. Dr. Habib-ur-Rehman Solangi, Deputy Director Law along with Muhammad Azhar Khan, Deputy Director Technical for
Respondent No. 1. Shoaib Qureshi, Assistant Director Technical and Fur
ARIF BELGAUMI and 4 others
VS
SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) through Director General and anothers
Law: Sindh Environmental Protection Act, (VIII of 2014)
Section: 17
(a) Sindh Environmental Protection Act (VIII of 2014)--- ----S. 17---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2014, Regln. 6---Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)---Scope assailed the approval of ‘Development of Beach’ accorded by Sindh Environmental Protection Agency in an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) on the ground that such project required filing of Environmental Impact Assessment---Validity---Compliance of sub-Regulation (2) of Regln. 6 of Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2014 was not possible without following its proviso on the point of recommendations of the Committee and admittedly, there were no recommendations of the Committee and even no such Committee was shown to have been constituted---Sub-Regulation (2) of Regln. 6 empowered the Agency to direct the proponent of a project to file an IEE or EIA or ECL for the reasons to be recorded in such direction---Such reasons could not be recorded without due consideration and justification---Decision of IEE approval was not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the impugned decision was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Agency for decision afresh. Salim Godil and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 CLD 222 and Zahid Javed v. Tahir Riaz Chaudhry PLD 2016 SC 637 ref. (b) Sindh Environmental Protection Act (VIII of 2014)--- ----S. 27---Appeals to the Environmental Protection Tribunal---Scope---Section 27 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014, provides that any person aggrieved of any order or direction of the Agency may prefer an appeal within 30 days of date of communication of the impugned order or direction to such person. (c) Sindh Environmental Protection Act (VIII of 2014)--- ----S. 27---Appeals to the Environmental Protection Tribunal---Limitation---Communication of order---Scope---Authorities/respondents contended that the appeal was barred by time as it was filed after 8 months of the passing of impugned order---Validity…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492