Rising backlog: How to expedite disposal

Poor defence lawyers, an uneducated registrar and concise judgments are main culprits.

LAHORE:

Lawyers and Environmental Tribunal members agree that speedy disposal of cases is crucial. They differ on how to get there. A lawyer The Express Tribune spoke with pointed to taking up of small cases and sparse judgments that do not strengthen or elaborate environment laws.

Members of the Tribunal on the other hand believe that the Environment Protection Agency needs to up its policing efforts so that fewer cases are sent to the Tribunal. Both agree that increasing the number of tribunals is not the answer.

Akhtar H Awan, a defence lawyer, working on over 50 cases at the Environmental Tribunal, pointed out several reasons for delays in disposal of cases. Among those he counted poor preparation by defence lawyers, registration of unnecessary cases and judgments that lack detailed arguments so they cannot be cited as precedent.

Awan favoured a single Tribunal for the Punjab.

“The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) should only take action against industries causing severe environmental degradation. Cases involving small polluters, such as improper waste water disposal by hair salons, welding shops or a car workshop should be dealt under locals laws by the tehsil municipal authority or the district coordination officer.” Awan reasoned that such cases take up as much time as the big cases but their disposal has very little impact. “The registrar does not appear to know which cases should be heard on priority.”

Awan said environmental law can only be strengthened through a series of strong judgments. He said over the last 18 years he had not seen any of those.

“Also, the members of the Tribunal do not produce comprehensive reports recommending reforms to the law.” Awan said that, since its promulgation in 1997, the Pakistan Environment Protection Act (now known as Punjab Environment Protection Act 2012) had never been utilised properly. He said this was partly due to shortcomings. Senior lawyers, he said, should deliberate on these and propose amendments. AR Saleemi, the technical member of the Tribunal, felt that many lawyers’ knowledge of environmental issues was inadequate. “Most of them are only interested in delaying the hearing. Cases from 2002 are still being heard despite a Tribunal rule requiring that cases be disposed off in 60 days.”

Saleemi said cases brought before the Environment Tribunal are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as well as the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Complaints against polluters are governed through the CrPC, while the CPC governs the appeals filed against the EPA.

He said cases were now being disposed of at a good pace. Saleemi said that the 2,000 to 3,000 “inherited” cases were a problem. Most new cases, he said, were being decided within two months. He said setting up more tribunals across the province would not help dispose cases more efficiently.

“Once a case comes to the Tribunal, evidence such as laboratory reports, facts and figures are required from the EPA. This often takes a long time. Arguments are then heard.”

He estimated that the tribunal, was currently, handing out decisions after an average of four hearings. “We have disposed of 197 cases in seven months. The federal tribunal had managed to deal with 435 since being set up in 1997.”

Obaid Rabbani, a general member of the Tribunal, said only the Punjab government could decide whether more tribunals would be set up. He, too, pointed out that the tribunal had dealt with more cases in the last seven months than the federal tribunal might have in a year.

“If the EPA supports the tribunal a little more, it can become even more effective. They need to strengthen inspection and policing efforts. That will result in more industries meeting the National Environmental Quality Standards.” He said fewer cases would then end up with the Tribunal and it would be able to adjudicate all those.

EPA Prosecutor Ruqqya Ambreen and Tribunal chairman Sheikh Abdul Rasheed did not respond to calls.

In May 2012, then EPD secretary Saeed Iqbal Wahlah had suggested the addition of two rules. He had proposed that the Tribunal’s technical member should have at least 17 years of work experience post a BSc degree and that the salary and perks offered to the Tribunal chairperson should be decided by the Punjab government. The Law Department has yet to comment on these recommendations.

Environment Tribunal overwhelmed

There is a rapidly rising backlog of cases at the Punjab environmental tribunal, since it is being forwarded cases at a faster rate than it can handle.

According to Ruqyya Umbreen, a lawyer working with the Environment Protection Department, the tribunal has been forwarded around a thousand cases since June last year, while it has taken up 467 and disposed of 197.

Since June 2012, Tribunal has disposed of 197 cases and been sent 1,000 new ones.

The tribunal has also to deal with some 3,000 cases pending since the early 2000s. It was only made functional in June 2012 after around a year in which it was without a head. Since the beginning of 2013, 98 new cases have been forwarded to the tribunal.

“All 3,000 cases cannot be dumped on the tribunal at once. We take up a few each time. Once the new cases are dealt with, some old ones are picked up,” said Umbreen, who represents the Punjab government in most cases before the tribunal.

She said it was simpler to dispose of cases against industrial units set up without obtaining a no-objection certificate from the EPD, which is a requirement under Section 12 of the Punjab Environment Protection Act of 2012. The tribunal gets the financial worth of the industry evaluated and then hands out a fine and orders it to relocate. A factory set up without an NOC can be fined up to Rs5 million. However, most of the units acted against have been very small, so the fines have been far lower.

Cases against polluters take far longer to handle, Umbreen said. They require documented evidence and extensive research, she added.



The Law Department is currently studying new rules proposed by the EPD that will put in place more stringent requirements for the establishment of rice mills, stone crushing units, poultry farms and base transceiver towers of cell phone companies, she said. “If implemented properly, they will result in fewer cases coming through to the tribunal,” she added.

The tribunal has handed out total fines of Rs1.7 million to polluting industries. Most of these have been factories based in Nankana Sahib, followed by Sargodha and Bahawalpur.

The Madina Rice mills and Noor Rice mills in Nankana Sahib were fined Rs200,000 each, the biggest fine the tribunal has ever imposed in its 15-year history. Rice mills give off high levels of powder and chaff during the milling process, causing air pollution.



Six stone crushing units in Sargodha were fined Rs50,000 each in the first week of January for emitting large quantities of dust, an air pollutant which causes respiratory diseases. Some 300 cases against stone crushing units are pending. Another 300 cases pending with the tribunal concern laboratories, clinics and hospitals that don’t properly dispose of medical waste.

Following a suo motu action by the Supreme Court, cases of about 300 shops, houses and hotels in Murree, dumping waste without a proper disposal system, were also sent to the environment tribunal. So far, it has taken decisions on 85 such cases. Umbreen said that they had been directed to build septic tanks and the local tehsil municipal administration charged a fee for collecting and incinerating domestic waste.

The three-member tribunal is based mainly in Lahore, but also meets in Multan, Rawalpindi and Bahawalpur. It meets from 9 am to 4 pm Monday to Saturday.

An EPD official, on the condition of anonymity, said the backlog could only be sorted if more tribunals were set up across Punjab, or if inspectors were empowered to deal with polluting industries directly.

EPD Director General Farooq Hameed Sheikh and EPD Secretary Sheikh Anwar Rasheed said that the tribunal came under the district and sessions judge, so the department could not interfere with its proceedings.

Before you drink that, read this

Twenty-eight industries account for most of the cases pending at the Environmental Tribunal. Objections raised by complainants against these industries vary from the type of pollution to establishment of factories without a proper environment management plan or without obtaining a no-objection certificate from the Environment Protection Department (EPD).

Tanneries discharge waste water which is high in chromium and copper both used for removing hair from the animal’s skin. The untreated waste water is disposed of in drains which empty out into rivers. The water also contains fats from the animal skin.

Poultry farms are mostly set up without an environment management plan. Bird droppings release ammonia into the air and cause a foul smell. Most of the poultry farms, hauled in front of the Enviroment Tribunal, across Punjab have been set up in residential areas.

Rice mills owners are accused of disposing husk in open areas and by the road side. When rice is separated from the husk a fine powdery dust is released. The rice dust can deposit in lungs and over time leads to respiratory diseases.

Bagasse is the dried leftover of sugarcane after it is passed through a mill for juicing. Many polluting sugar mills later use it as fuel for generating electricity. When burned in open furnaces, it releases dangerous quantities of dioxins and ash.

Owners of fat extracting units boil fat to make it digestible and use it in poultry feed. This releases a foul smell and fumes. Many units are established near residential areas.

Cases against owners of CNG and petrol stations have also been filed for violation of Section 12 of Pakistan Environment Protection Act (requiring an Initial Environmental Examination and Environmental Impact Assessment).

Restaurants and hotels, make up as many as 350 cases in Murree and Rawalpindi, set up without an environment management plan. They are accused of disposing solid waste and waste water into natural springs and lakes.

Limestone and marble crushing units release dust which can deposit in lungs. Marble cutting units also release limestone powder into the air and a sludge into open spaces.



Owners of plastic and glass recycling units use infected hospital waste, including injections, urine and blood bags. The hospital waste is crushed into granular plastic. The activity is prohibited under the Hospital Waste Management Rules 2005.

Some textile factories, embroidery and dyeing units dispose of untreated waste water carrying carcinogens into drains which joins natural springs and rivers.

Cement units release fine cement particles into the air causing respiratory diseases. Fertiliser and pesticide units dispose waste water having dissolved ammonia and also release large quantities of ammonia.

Steel re-rolling units and brick kilns use rubber from used tyres in their furnaces. This gives off high quantities of carbon soot and dangerous dioxins into the air.

Paint and chemicals factories dispose of their untreated waste water, which has chromium and other heavy metals, into open spaces or unlined pits which leads to groundwater contamination or dump it into drains.

Beverage factories and fruit processing units dispose of their solid waste and waste water, exceeding the permitted bio-chemical oxygen demand, into drains or open spaces.

Base transceiver towers, installed by mobile phone companies, run on generators which cause noise and air pollution.

Cases have also been moved against several banks and shops for dumping waste into the open.

Hospitals, medical laboratories and clinics have been taken to court for selling infected solid waste instead if incinerating it and also for disposing of untreated waste water into drains.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 3^rd, 2013.