DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH versus MOHSIN TABANI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TMK SUGAR MILL
Sections 11, 16, 17 and 21 (3) (a) exclude or exclude any contamination and waste complaint against the definition of evidence of environmental sampling rules, 2001, R8 (2) evidence of wastewater samples And was examined in the Environmental Protection Agency's laboratory. It has been observed that the level of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD), was higher than the national environmental quality complaint against sugar mill because it was clearly established. It was alleged that the management mill violated Sections 11 and 16 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997, the Tribunal could investigate the offense under Section 17 (1) of the Evidence Act and the contents of the record show that It was a violation of the rules under it. From the beginning of the proceedings against the mill, to the prosecution's witnesses, to the complaint before the Tribunal, the water samples in the laboratory, which were in fact accepted by all the witnesses, were made by the test report and the test or analysis certificate prepared on record. Revealed that the sample number was mentioned as \ NIL as. The said certificate could not ascertain how it belonged. The mill's reference or name was never mentioned about this mill. Samples were sent to the laboratory 48 hours after the department violated R8 (2) of the Environmental Patterns Regulations 2001 and stated that the illegal delay was not fatal in the prosecution case. In this case, a claim for specimen delivery was made and no timely samples were sent to the laboratory, no reliance on the test report.
Related judgments — Environmental Protection Tribunal Karachi, 2012
