The court directed the Environment Protection Department (EPD) to ensure that no construction work was carried out on the project. PHOTO: LHC.GOV.PK
The court directed the Environment Protection Department (EPD) to ensure that no construction work was carried out on the project. It observed that the EPD secretary had failed to take action against the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and the project director for violating Section 12 of the Punjab Environment Protection Act 1997 that says no proponent of a project shall commence construction without obtaining a no-objection certificate from the Environment Protection Agency (EPA).
The judge directed the EPD secretary to explain why an Environment Protection Order had not been issued to the LDA. The court asked the LDA director general to hold an inquiry as to why construction work had been started without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project. The director general was ordered to submit a report in this regard at the next hearing.
The court said no further works shall be carried out… however in order to facilitate the traffic flow, the LDA is permitted to take necessary steps that must conclude by Saturday evening.
Officials from the LDA told the court the authority would hold a public hearing on March 16 to record citizens’ concerns about the project.
On February 28, the court had stopped the government from cutting any tree to build the corridor.
Petitioner Fahad Malik also submitted a contempt of court petition accusing the authorities of chopping some trees in violation of court orders. The court then sought comments on the application from LDA officials. They said the LDA had not cut any tree and that some Lahore Electric Supply Company (Lesco) officials might have cut some trees.
Saad Amir, counsel for the petitioner, said the project supervisor had informed him that the LDA was cutting trees to widen the road. He accused the LDA officials of misleading the court. He said under law the LDA could not pursue the project until it had held a public hearing in this regard.
Amir said that apart from posing threats to the environment, the proposed corridor would violate several human rights.
“They want to remove greenbelts on both sides of Gulberg’s Main Boulevard and cut many trees along the road. They want to acquire private land but legal course is not being adopted in this regard.”
He said that for the 7-kilometre corridor, the authorities wanted to construct four pedestrian bridges. He said there were several hospitals in the project area. The corridor would add to noise pollution causing problems for patients, he said.
He requested the court to declare the project illegal. He also requested the court to issue a stay order against it.
Responding to a court query, the LDA officials said the authority had started the project without carrying out the EIA.
On the ground
Sign boards for diversion of traffic had earlier been put up and digging work started at Jail Road for the construction of the corridor.
Two underpasses and seven U-turns are planned under the project. The intersections at Shadman Chowk and Fowara No 1 are to have underpasses. Other intersections along the route are to have of U-turns. These include the Eden Centre Chowk, the PIC Chowk, the Canal Road intersection, the Zafar Ali Road intersection, the Main Market Chowk and the Zahoor Elahi Chowk.
The contract for the project was awarded in February. The cost estimate for the project is Rs1.3 billion. Environment Protection Agency Director General Sheikh Farooq Hamid told The Express Tribune that an environmental impact assessment report received from the LDA was under scrutiny. He said a no-objection certificate would be issued based on the departmental inquiry as well as the findings of a public hearing.An spokesperson said 2,000 trees would be planted to compensate for the 196 trees that will be cut during the construction of the signal-free corridor.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 7th, 2015.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ