HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, on Tuesday constituted a three-member committee to study the environmental impact on the project site of a saline water reservoir being built using lands of certain villages in Islamkot taluka of Tharparkar district.

The bench comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Mohammad Iqbal Mahar was seized with a petition filed by Mr Lakho and 10 other residents of Islamkot. They have challenged construction of the reservoir, to be spread over an area of 2,700 acres in Gorano village, on the grounds that it would contain hazardous mine water and could cause destruction of the environment, graveyards, mosques and temples, besides affecting the life and health of the local human and animal population.The bench comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Mohammad Iqbal Mahar said that the committee would submit its report to court within two months. The expenses of the committee would be borne by the Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company [which is executing the project], it said.

The bench also said that the committee would be competent to call a person from any agency for assistance. It would examine the distance between the reservoir and and Gorano and Dhukar Cho villages, estimate total population of the project site, it further said.

The bench said that the committee would suggest ways to protect community, environment and wildlife.

The committee comprises Hyderabad commissioner Asif Hyder Shah (chairman), Shamsul Haq Memon and Fazalullah Qureshi. The bench suggested that water technologist Dr Ahsan Siddiqui could be included as its fourth member if the need be.

The petitioners and the company consented to the formation of the committee.

During the proceedings, the court asked petitioners’ counsel to satisfy it on the maintainability ground on Dec 21. As a last chance, the wildlife department was asked to produce the notification regarding declared sanctuary in the Tharparkar area and submit its comments.

Advocate Aayatullah Khowaja, one of the counsel representing the petitioners, informed court that saline water would be stored first in the Gorano village part and then the Dhukar Cho village part of the reservoir. “But EIA covers only Dukar Chau village and not Gorano village where 37km-long pipeline is being laid to bring saline water,” he said. He claimed that no resettlement plan was prepared for the population to be displaced. He said that the company was supposed to obtain clearance from wildlife department which they had not done. Without getting the clearance, they could not start work on the site, he argued.

Justice Panhwar said that “when projects are launched, this ultimately leads to displacement of people who are compensated accordingly”. He said he believed such ponds would be established in every block of the project. He observed that perhaps no study was done to see how the population of Thar would be affected on the whole.

The counsel for the respondent company, Advocate Mayhar Kazi, explained his client’s effluent disposal scheme part of which was the pond. He informed court that among the alternative sites proposed for the pond was a Ramsar site, which could not be considered.

Reservoir area size

The counsel said that the Gorano effluent disposal site was spread over 1,400 acres, and not 2,700 acres as was claimed in the

petition.

He also disputed Advocate Khowaja’s claim that Gorano was not mentioned in the EIA, and insisted that there were multiple references to it. He stated that Gorano’s was a temporary reservoir for which a pipeline was being laid. “The community is rightly concerned about availability of potable water. The company is installing three RO plants to address the issue,” he stated.

He argued that the petition could be a case of infringement of some private parties’ rights but not a public interest litigation because petitioners did not own the lands.

Advocate Zubair Abro, the lead counsel for the petitioners, argued that it was not a question of community alone but of environment. He said the company had violated environmental laws and the Wildlife Protection Ordinance, 1972. He stated that out of the 37km stretch of the pipeline, 22 kilometres fell within the wildlife protected area. The petitioners’ counsel sought interim relief i.e. suspension of work at the site till the committee submitted its report. Justice Panhwar said that committee would submit its report within two months and he would then hear injunction application on merit. He observed that it was also a case of factual controversy and not to be decided by this court. He asked why the petitioners did not challenge EIA and [were] relying on the very document.

Advocate Kazi questioned the formation of the committee if case was to be decided on merit. Justice Panhwar told him in a lighter vein that “you made such a statement after feeling that the bench is perhaps of view the petition is not maintainable ... we can change our mind and say it is maintainable and order interim relief”.

Saman Raffat Ismail represented the Sindh Coal Authority (SCA).

Published in Dawn December 7th, 2016