KARACHI: A tribunal was informed that the act of a top-ranking official of the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) to reissue the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report of the controversial Malir Expressway project was “illegal, abuse of authority and interference” in the process of legal proceedings.

This was contended by environmental activists as well as some Malir residents, who have already challenged the EIA approval granted to a private construction firm for the proposed expressway project.

The appellants filed the rejoinder to a reply of M/s Malir Expressway Limited to their appeals being heard by the Environment Protection Tribunal headed by retired Justice Nisar Ahmed Shaikh.

In April, a deputy director of Sepa signed the EIA report of the project, but on June 10 the report was signed by Sepa director general Muhammad Naeem Mughal.

Environmentalists, residents allege Sepa DG interfered in legal proceedings by signing fresh report

In the rejoinder filed through Advocate Zubair Abro, the appellants stated that the construction firm’s contention that the EIA approval for the project was issued in accordance with the laws was ‘incorrect and misleading’.

They stated that the Sepa DG was required to act as per law and not on his “whims and wishes”.

“Furthermore, reissuance of EIA approval reaffirms respondents filling the gaps after filing of this appeal,” argued Advocate Abro referring to the alleged violation of the laws in the process of EIA approval by the Sepa chief.

“The new approval is illegal, abuse of authority and interference in the process of legal proceedings,” he added.

The counsel argued that the reissuance of the EIA for the controversial project depicted the state of affairs in Sepa, which acted in complete disregard to the law. It would also apposite to point out here that there was no mention of reissuance of new approval in the reply of the construction firm.

The rejoinder stated that M/s Malir Expressway Limited had filed incorrect statements to mislead the tribunal.

The counsel argued that his clients filed appeal with the tribunal well in time, as provided under Section 27 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 because the period of 30 days started from the date of communication of the impugned order, which was communicated to the appellants by Sepa on April 26 and the appeal was filed within 30 days time.

He further argued that the claim of entitlement of deeming clause under Section 27(4) of the Act, 2014 was misconceived as the construction firm conceded on its own request that the first public hearing was postponed due to its failure to make sure availability of its consultants.

Therefore, the counsel said, the respondent construction firm could not claim the benefit of the deeming clause, especially when it had delayed the EIA review process itself.

The appellants also overruled the firm’s objection of having no locus standi to file the appeal, arguing that they being residents of the project’s area, particularly the appellants resided in the project impact zone and were affected by the violation of the provisions of the Act, 2014, thus they were aggrieved persons.

He argued that it was well settled law that in environmental matters the locus standi was not strictly applied. He reiterated that the appellants had raised objections during the public hearing held to review the EIA of the project and also sent reminders to Sepa, the fact which was not denied by the Sepa itself.

He further argued that Section 31 does not require submission of the objections or comments before the public hearing, but Sepa was required under Section 31(3) to consider comments, take decision or action thereon and communicate such decision or action to the person, who had furnished such comments.

Regarding the legal statue of the registration of the construction firm, the counsel argued that the company had changed its status before submitting the project’s EIA report under a name which ceased to exist, and no explanation was given in this regard.

“Actually, there is no explanation because the Respondent 2 (project’s proponent) deliberately submitted EIA in wrong name to escape from consequences of giving false undertakings and affidavits because it was aware that it was submitting a flawed EIA marred with misrepresentations, and incorrect data,” the appellants’ counsel said.

The appellants pleaded to the tribunal to allow the appeal against the approval of the EIA of the Malir Expressway project.

The tribunal took the rejoinder on record and adjourned the hearing till Sept 28.

Published in Dawn, September 22nd, 2022