Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 662 2010 SLD 662 2010 CLD 1555
Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue
Complaint No.2 of 2010, decision dated: 29-06-2010
MRS. ASHRAF, JOHAN, CHAIRPERSON DR. SAMI UZ ZAMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for the Complainant. Jamshed Malik for the
Respondent No. 1. Abdul Maroof, DDPP for the EPA, Sindh

SYED. HAROON AHMED

VS

MESSRS DADEX ETERNIT LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997)--Ss. 11 & 21---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200 & 249-A---Complaint---Maintainability---Factual controversy---Locus standi---Issue of public interest---Respondent-company filed application under section 21 of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, seeking dismissal of complaint on the grounds that the same was incorrectly filed, no statutory notice was given by complainant to respondent and complainant was not an aggrieved person to file the complaint---Validity---Whether respondent company was violating provisions of S.11 of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, was a question of fact, which could not be decided on the presumption or assumption except allowing the prosecution full opportunity to lead evidence and prove its case in such regard---Requisition of respondent-company for dismissal of complaint at such stage for want of jurisdiction was misconceived---Upon receipt of complaint, Environmental Tribunal had given thirty days notice to Provincial Environmental Protection Agency for enquiry and report in the matter, therefore, it would be decided after recording of evidence, whether it fulfilled the legal requirement of notice or not---Complainant's brother, since deceased, had been an employee of respondent-company and issue of environmental hazard raised by complainant was an issue of public interest, in which case principle of 'aggrieved person' could not be strictly applied---Even if it was presumed that there had been procedural lapse in entertaining the complaint, again it would be a question worth consideration whether such lapse was incurable or fatal to the proceedings of the complaint or not---Respondent-company had failed to show that due to such reason any prejudice had been caused to it particularly when as a general rule, procedural provisions of law were directory in nature and not mandatory unless so provided by law---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Ahmed Hussain alias Laloo v. The State 1995 MLD 604; Sheikh Abdul Hakeem v. Shamusddin PLD 2008 Quetta 14 and Digital Radio Paging Limited v. Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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