KARACHI: The Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) on Wednesday argued before an environmental tribunal that the appeals filed against the controversial Malir Expressway project were not maintainable for being time barred and asked for their dismissal.

Sepa director general Naeem Mughal made this submission while filing para-wise comments to the identical appeals challenging the grant of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval to the project launched by M/s Malir Expressway Limited.

In the comments, the Sepa chief stated that the appeals were time barred as the project’s EIA was approved on April 6 while the appeals were filed on May 13 with an unexplained delay of about a week.

“It has been spelled out under Section 27(1) of the SEP Act 2014 that an appeal has to be filed within the period of 30 days from the date of the decision,” he said, adding that the present appeals were bad in the eyes of law and as such “not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed”.

Appellants’ lawyers asked to advance argument on maintainability of pleas

Mr Mughal said M /s Malir Expressway Limited had submitted the proposed project to Sepa on Oct 13, 2021 along with the required documents.

After preliminary scrutiny, public notice and public hearing, the EIA study was uploaded on the official website of Sepa. After careful review and fulfilment of all the requirements, the project was approved with stringent conditions on April 6, he added.

He maintained that the proposed development project was approved in accordance with the provisions of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 and Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Assessment) Regulations, 2021.

Mr Mughal added that the project had been considered and approved in the Schedule-II, Category-E, sub-category (2) “Construction of highway, motorway, major roads (intercity roads)”.

The agency’s chief claimed that the public comments and suggestions were considered and eventually the project was approved in accordance with the provisions of the Sepa, 2014 and Sepa (Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2021.

He argued that the EIA approval of the project was signed by Mubarak Ali, deputy director-technical (BPS-18), of Sepa after getting approval in the notes heet from him.

He said that no violation of Section 31(3) of the Sepa Act 2014 was made, adding that the project was approved according to the provisions of the law and regulations.

The tribunal headed by retired Justice Nisar Ahmed Shaikh asked the lawyers for the appellants to advance arguments as to whether or not the appeals were time barred as claimed by the Sepa chief.

The judge declined the request once again made by the counsel for the appellants to pass an interim order, restraining the construction company from carrying out the construction work on the project till the final disposal of the appeals.

Meanwhile, M/s Malir Expressway Limited engaged a new lawyer to represent it in the proceedings as its previous counsel withdrew his power.

The hearing was adjourned till June 9.

Malir residents Abdul Qayoom and Ahmed Shabbar and the Indigenous Rights Alliance Karachi had filed appeals before the environmental tribunal asking it to declare that the EIA approval accorded by Sepa to the Malir Expressway as unlawful and without authority.

They said that being concerned residents of Malir district, they attended the EIA hearing and submitted their written objections to the EIA report and raised multiple objections to the feasibility of the project, assessment, findings and recommendations in the report.

They stated that a reminder was also sent to Sepa for informing them about the status of their objections and the EIA review process, but the authority allegedly did not reply to those objections and reminders.

The tribunal was told that after media reports about the approval of the controversial project, the appellants immediately approached Sepa for obtaining a copy of the EIA approval and its decision made on their objections, as required under the 2014 Act.

However, the authority supplied the copy of the approval on April 26, but did not supply the decision on the objections made by the appellants, they added.

Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2022