MULTAN: Khanewal techniques judge Suhaib Ahmed Rumi on Thursday directed the environmental magistrate to gather the wastewater taste of a milk factory according to the process explained in the Punjab Environment Protection Act 1997 and have its survey from an authorized laboratory.
The milk developing unit through an instant revision petition encountered the buy of the environmental magistrate who while having cognisance of a problem filed by Rashid Ali, a resident of Jaswant Nagar, that the manufacturing plant may be restrained from draining its effluent/wastewater into the nearby canal for being hazardous and causing pollution, on March 25 granted direction to the SHO of the police department concerned to gather the demo of drained water and send it to the Pakistan Council for Scientific and Industrial Research ( PCSIR ) Lahore for analysis and record.
The factory’s counsel contended that a specific method had been laid down in the act to obtain the demo of wastewater but the magistrate while dismissing the lawful method incorrectly exercised his jurisdiction by providing direction to the SHO despite the fact the laboratory was not contained in the number of licensed laboratories. The judge in his buy stated that a particular method of collecting of demo had been supplied in the act while prescribing the mode of collection and demo.
“Therefore the impugned demand to this extent is set aside with the path to learned environmental magistrate to proceed further in the matter in accordance with terms and conditions qua the number of demo and its analysis by the authorized laboratories,” the judge stated.
He stated that factory’s counsel also increased some objections about the maintainability of the problem presented before the magistrate but over his ( judge’s ) question, the counsel informed the court that all such objections were not increased before the magistrate.
“I am of the look at that to deal with such objections in revisional jurisdiction by this court at this stage would amount to preempt the original jurisdiction of environmental magistrate; moreover the revision petitioners have only challenged the order of March 25 before this court which is staying responded to accordingly,” he mentioned.