Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2015 PLD 522
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2015
Decision Date: 2015-04-17
Parties: Ms. IMRANA TIWANA and otherss vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This judicial decision was delivered by the Lahore High Court on 2015-04-17. The matter involves proceedings between Ms. IMRANA TIWANA and otherss and PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others, officially reported as 2015 PLD 522. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as PLD 2015 Lahore 522
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Yawar Ali, Ayesha A. Malik, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah Title: Ms. IMRANA TIWANA and otherss vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Case No.: Writ Petition No.7955 of 2015 Date of Judgment:2015-04-17 Reported As: 2015 LHC 2551, PLD 2015 Lahore 522 Result: Petitions allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.---Through this environmental public interest petition, concerned citizenry of Lahore, has invoked the constitutional and equitable jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the Signal Free Corridor Project (Project) proposed and initiated by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). 2. The challenge rests on the following fundamental propositions of constitutional importance:-- Whether the foundational constitutional values of democracy, equality, political, economic and social justice; informed with fundamental rights and the principles of policy, recognize and acknowledge environmental justice and the international environmental principles as natural and integral concomitant of these values, rights and policies? Whether, the above constitutional values, rights and policies underline the constitutional requirement of an independent and autonomous regulator (in this case: The Provincial Environmental Protection Agency) to safeguard and protect the most primordial of fundamental rights i.e., right to life, liberty and dignity of the people (Articles 9 and 14), by protecting the most essential element of human life i.e., the environment? (iii) Whether the constitutional recognition and command to establish a third tier of elected self- government under Article 140A of the Constitution, actualizes the constitutional vision of a federalist state and of guaranteeing political, economic and social justice, encouraging local government institutions (Article 32), the right to liberty, dignity and political participation (Articles 9, 14 and 17)? (iv) Whether, the constitutional ethos of Federalism (reinvigorated through the 18th Constitutional amendment) introduce a new era of constitutional maturity complimenting the traditional doctrine of horizontal separation of powers between different organs of the State with a more enlightened
---
## Page 2
constitutional design that in addition accounts for vertical and internal separation of powers within the organs of the State? And whether there exists vertical separation of powers and corresponding autonomy between the elected Provincial and Local Governments? (v) Whether devolution and vertical separation of powers envisaged under Article 140A of the Constitution allows Lahore Development Authority (LDA), a provincial body, to trump and usurp the powers of the elected local governments, which firmly rest on constitutionally devolved political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority under Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 ("PLGA") with clearly delineated powers ? (vi) Whether Provincial Legislature can curtail or abridge the powers already devolved under Article 140A and PLGA to the local governments by introducing amendments in the LDA Act or through introducing other provincial laws? 3. The Signal Free Corridor Project is a project that redesigns and remodels existing roads that start from Qartaba Chowk (roundabout) and end at Liberty Market Main Chowk spread over 7 K.Ms of the existing Jail Road and Main Boulevard. Remodelling would convert this stretch into a signal free, high speed expresswa y by introducing two underpasses at the Shadman and Fawara Chowks and seven U turns and five overhead pedestrian bridges at a cost of approx. Rs.1.5 billion of the taxpayers' money. 4. The petitioners submit that LDA in spite of having filed an Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") with the respondent Provincial Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), has in total disregard of the law, that is, without seeking the approval of EPA under Section 12 of the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997 ("PEPA-) mobilized the works and illegally commenced the construction of the Project. During the course of hearing, the Advocate General, Punjab confirmed that the EIA approval has been finally granted by the Director General, EPA on 19-3-2015 when the Project had commenced and after some of the petitioners had already approached this Court on 26-2-2015 by challenging the commencement of the Project without approval of EIA and before the availability of the EIA Report being made Public. It appears that EPA hurriedly granted the approval and placed it on the record, because the Court had taken cognizance of the matter and had questioned the LDA and the Provincial Government to explain how the Project had commenced without an EIA approval. The petitioners in the instant case and the subsequent connected petitions (all of them being public interest petitions) have also challenged the said decision of the DG, EPA. 5. The petitioners, as a community of concerned citizens, have vehemently urged that EPA, currently, is not, an autonomous statutory environmental protection agency but a mere Attached Department of the Provincial Government, functioning on the dictates of the Provincial Government. It is argued that EPA suffers from complete Regulatory Capture by the Provincial Government and hence the impugned decision is a result of dictation and non-application of an independent mind. It is argued, that it is not possible for the beleaguered EPA to independently dispense environmental justice, within the statutory framework of PEPA, the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations, 2000 ("Regulations-) and the Environmental Law Guidelines, namely: (i) Policy and Procedure for Filing, Review and Approval of Environmental Assessm ents. (ii) Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Environmental Reports and (iii) Guidelines for Public Consultation. EPA also falls short of protecting the constitutional values of social justice and the fundamental rights under the Constitution. As a consequence, it is argued, that the entire EM approval process, as well as, the preparation of the EIA report by the consultant is materially deficient and defective. 6. The petitioners, as concerned citizens, have also urged this Court to take notice of the sheer absurdity and irrationality of the Project. It is submitted that Rs.1.5 billion, of the tax payers' money is being spent to convert a 7 km road into a high speed corridor for only 8% motorists of the city, with
---
## Page 3
no regard for the pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorized persons who are in majority. It is also emphasized that the selection of the Project is at the cost of several other more important development projects in the Lahore Division. They vehemently submit that the sanction of the Project by the LDA, was without application of mind as is evident from the minutes of the meeting of LDA. They pleaded that while the patients languish in hospitals without doctors and medicines and government schools function without teachers, the need to spend Rs.1.5 billion on a small stretch of road, in the most developed part of Lahore, is cruel, inequitable and undemocratic. They, urged that such nakedly irrational development policies are subject to judicial review. 7. On the role of LDA versus the Local Government, it was urged that after devolution of political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local government system under Article 140A of the Constitution, and after the provincial legislature having vested the municipal service relating to urban development under PLGA in the Lahore Metropolitan Corporation ("LMC"), LDA has no constitutional authority to initiate, the Project within the devolved political, administrative and financial space of LMC. It is submitted that any such Project can ONLY be initiated and developed by the concerned elected Local Government. 8. It has been argued that the conclusions and recommendations drawn by the EIA Consultant are based on an inadequate, incompetent, unsubstantiated and biased appraisal of the Project, and are liable to be disregarded. The EIA, prepared by LDA, is itself a vacuous document and persistently violates the Guidelines which inform its preparation. The petitioners have given a detailed list of areas in which the EIA falls short of the legal requirements. The summary of their submissions is as under and references therein are to the EIA Report submitted by LDA before the EPA:-- HOW THE PROJECT EIA FALLS SHORT OF LEGAL REQUIREMENTS {{TABLE}} Sr. No. Requirement with source What has been done in EIA Comments 1. Project Description: Objectives; alternatives considered and reasons for rejection; description of location (with maps and photos of specific locations and layout) including land uses on site and surroundings, details of population centers and nearby _ Ferozepur Road MBS Project explained in more detail than actual Project (para 2.1, pp. 11-12) - States that the link requiring improvements plays important role in Important aspects of Project Description are omitted from the EIA, including a representation of the existing site (location) and description of the Project components. Hence, from reading the EIA, one is not dwellings, road access, topographic and vegetation features of site; description of project, including drawings showing project layout, components, etc. (EIA-G: para 2.3, p.6-7 and para 5.2, p. 24) traffic and transport system of Lahore. - On account of its importance, crossings need improvement, and making it signal-free are inevitable. (Para 2.2, pp. 12-13) - No map or photos whatsoever have been given of location. No detailing of land uses on site and surroundings, no details of population centers, nor of dwellings, road access, topographic or vegetation.1
---
## Page 4
- As for description of project layout and components, it is done in point form (p. 18 for Jail Rd. And p. 22 Main Boulevard). Three miniscule layout drawings are provided (pp. 19, 20, 23), which are not legible and provide no details of what the Project will look like. These drawings do not cover the entire project as described in the pints. Alternatives are discussed and rejected in two pages (pp. 16- 17). No qualitative or quantitative analysis goes into this evaluation and rejection. Discussed in more details at Sr. No. 3 below. Certain of what the location looks like (from various perspectives, including vegetation, land use, population centers etc.) nor is one certain of what t the completed Project will look like, as the diagrams provided are glaringly insufficient, unclear, and incomplete The existing traffic situation which presumably mandates such a major transport project is provided in the form of two diagrams for average daily traffic for Shadman Chowk and Fawara Chowk at pp. 14-15. These diagrams apart from not quoting the source of the data, fail to interpret the data presented in any sense whatsoever. What do the figures actually mean in terms of traffic congestion? What is the extent of congestion presented by these diagrams, and what times of the day? Do these scats justify the Project, and if so, how? The Lahore Master Plan 2021, has M the following to say of Project such as the present one, in para 8.11.2, p. 8-26: "LDA made a preliminary effort to produce a Manual of Traffic Engineering, but that too is not being utilized because of lack of expertise and knowledge on the part of road building agencies and local consultancy houses. Major problem lies in project preparation and planning. Project feasibilities are seldom based on traffic studies. For major projects, traffic counts are usually carried out to save from the scrutiny of the approving agencies, their utility for design solutions is witnessed in rare projects. This results towards wasteful expenditure on projects with least priority of traffic demand. It is happening because of lack of expertise on the part of sponsoring and approving agencies on one hand and political compulsions on the other. Recently completed LRRP of exMCL is a classical example where more than Rs.3.4 billion are spent on a project of urban roads without carrying out any traffic study, traffic demand analysis justifying its engineering feasibility, traffic impact assessm ent ensuring its operational efficiency and economic and financial viability for any of its components." The EIA is more a predetermined justification for the Project. It does not comprehensively address the issue it is trying to address (traffic congestion on roads) as there is no validation of the problem being
---
## Page 5
resolved by signal-free corridors. 2. Scoping: Described as "a vital early step" and "a process of interaction between the interested public, government agencies and the proponent. Scoping refers to the process of identifying, as early as possible: the appropriate boundaries of the environmental assessm ent; * important issues and concerns; * the information necessary for decision- making; and * the significant impacts and factors to be considered. (EIA-G: para 2.4; p. 8) *Read further from this section* Role of Stakeholders in Scoping: Includes, environmental practitioners and experts, those affected, and the wider community. *Read from EIA-G: para 2.5, pp. 9-10)* Note: The Punjab EP Act, 1997, and its regulations and guidelines envisage a two-tier public participation process. The first and most important of which is to take place during the preparation of the EIA. This is evident from the Scoping requirements laid down. It is at this stage that meaningful and protracted input can be gained from various segments of society, especially those to be From a reading of the EIA, it is apparent that a scoping exercise has not been undertaken. There is a section devoted to public consultation (section 6). It stresses the importance of the consultation process in the assessme nt process (pare 6.1, p. 91), however, it is apparent that a meaningful consultation process has not been carried out for the Project. The EIA states at para 6.2.1 (pp. 91-92) that there are no primary stakeholders for the improvement of Jail Road and Main Boulevard. It groups local residents, shop keepers, vendors, pedestrians, and businessme n of the adjoining markets as secondary stakeholders. Stakeholders are identified in-Table 6.2 (p. 93) and it appears that the Consultant has itself surmised as to what their various concerns might be. It is ' stated that stakeholders (groups/individuals) were briefed about the project, and eventually their queries about the It is obvious from the reading of the Public consultation section of the EIA that a meaningful engagement with stakeholders has not been carried out. Whereas the EIAG, envisage a two-way flow of ideas, knowledge, and concerns, between those affected, the wider community, environmental experts, and the proponent, so as to highlight important issues and concerns, the EIA evidently takes a non- serious and paternalistic approach to scoping. There, is no mention of community groups, experts or NGOs having been
---
## Page 6
consulted. No criteria are given for selecting stakeholders, and the atomised individuals consulted seem to have been selected at random. Just some of the obvious stakeholders in the Project (some of which have been mentioned in other parts of the EIA) include Kinnaird College, Lahore College for Women (and other education providers along the directly affected by the proposed projects. The second is the project were answered to their satisfaction (para 6.3.1; p 94). Project route), Omer Hospital (and other hospitals/clinics on the Project route), owners requirement to hold a public It goes on to state of major shopping hearing on EIAs, and solicit comments/objections on that 77% of the, respondents favoured malls and plazas on the route, residents of proposed projects. Given the inherent constraints of such a the Project whereas 23% were against. Gulberg and Shadman, the custodians of the hearing, and the fact that the (para 6.3.3, p. 94). Christian cemetery on scope and nature of the Jail Road, urban Project has already taken In para 6.4, pp. Planning and concrete form at this point, this public participation 95-96, a summary of the comments and environment experts/NGOs, ' to process is far less effective in addressing genuine discussions with i stakeholders is name a few. community concerns. Provided. It is stated It is evident from that most of the public the overwhelming considers improvement presence of concerned of roads/provision of citizens and experts underpasses to be a (many of whom filed priority project in the comments/objections city. Concerns were on the EIA) at the raised as to road public hearing, that Crossingsbeing the Proponent and disturbed (eliminated) Consultant had not by the Project; and . Carried out a employment in meaningful construction phase scoping/consultation going to persons from process, but rather outside the Project decided on its own the area. In response, it is nature and scope of stated that "all fears of the Project to be the community were alleviated", and that foisted upon the City. positive impacts will As for the concern abound from the raised as to ease of Project. It states that all the people showed travel by pedestrians, the EIA seems to have their satisfaction for resolved the issue in the improvement of jail words alone. It is road and main shocking that the boulevard/in the Consultant's solution area." to this major issue is the construction of
---
## Page 7
In para 6.5, p. 96 four (4) pedestrian it is stated that bridges along the 'several issues were 7-km route (see: pp. raised by the 18 and 22), i.e. a community during the consultation, which were immediately addressed by the bridge every 1.75 km! Consultants' officials. Residents of the city were very much supportive to the implementation of the proposed project." After due consideration of the comments/observations of the people, it is stated in para 6.5, p. 96, inter alia, that In the absence of crossings by pedestrians, the comfort level presently available will be disturbed, therefore pedestrian bridges should be take-up for completion simultaneously; The difficulties and problems faced by pedestrians during movement on roads will be eliminated"; and "Public mental tension, frustration will be minimized" A list of persons consulted is provided on p. 97. It includes only 23 persons, for a 7-km long Project, at an estimated cost of Rs.1.5 billion. The list comprises entirely of individuals, no groups, organisations, NGOs consulted has been provided. The Punjab EPA review proceedings refer to this as "random sampling at p. 23 of 87. 3. Generating Alternatives: "A rigorous approach to generating alternatives is more commonly associated with proposals from the public sector, where the allocation of public funds and priorities is recognised as a legitimate public interest...Alternatives are generated and examined Alternatives to the Project are discussed in para 2.3, pp. 16-17 of the EIA. The two alternatives discussed and rejected as follows: No Project The consideration of the No Project Option indicates an extremely fatalistic and myopic approach to traffic management, as if the LDA (and TEPA) can exercise no control over future traffic flows apart from observing the to determine the best method of achieving project objectives, while minimising environmental impacts. They can be grouped under such headings as: * Activity alternatives (eg providing public transport rather than increasing road capacity)" (EIA-G: para 2,6; p. 10). "The 'no-build' alternative is often used as a base against which to measure the relative performance of other alternatives. In this case the relative impacts of the other alternatives are expressed as changes to the base case. If, overall, all the alternatives were judged to have unacceptable performance, the decision might be to adopt none of them, and stay with the status quo-- the no-build'." (EIA-G: para 2,6; p. 11) EIA-G: Para 5.2, p. 25 states that for both the proposal and its alternative, the Environmental Report requires a description of the potential beneficial and adverse environmental impacts, both direct and indirect, for each component of the environment identified as important during the screening and coping stages.-
---
## Page 8
It goes on to state that "alternative proposals should be compared, focusing on the significant adverse and beneficial impacts, after allowing for mitigation measures. The preferred alternative should be identified with a complete description of those impacts Option: In the absence of the Project, the existing traffic problem and the level of service will further aggravate with the passage of time. * Provision of Overhead Crossings: In addition to increased capital cost of construction, the "fibre of the area will be significantly disturbed. Less invasive alternatives which might not require large-scale construction have not been considered. No quantitative assessment of the alternatives over time has been provided. That fact that only 1.5 pages is devoted to alternatives speaks volumes of the seriousness with which other options were considered. It should be noted that the perspective of vulnerable road users has not been factored in when assessing alternatives, in contravention of, inter alia, the strategy for road development laid down in the Lahore Master Plan 2021 (para 21.1.1) increase in vehicular traffic, and providing further road space to accommodate it. Regretfully, the other options that are available to the LDA and other governmental organisations have not even been considered. These include: * Enforcement of traffic discipline * Relocation of critical activities * Implementation of affordable and convenient public transport systems Parking discipline * Proper signals and traffic control * Elimination of jay-walking by catering to the needs of VRUs. Unfortunately it seems that the LDA wishes only to consider "mega projects" and not look for simple effective solutions. The consultant reveals the self-serving nature of the EIA when it states in para 1.4.1, p. 7, that "the main objective of the EIA study is to assess the environmental impacts likely to occur due to the construction of the roads improvement project, and to suggest mitigation measures to minimize the likely negative impacts". This makes it crystal considered to be of greatest significance and the measures proposed to avoid, reduce or mitigate them, and opportunities for environ- mental enhancement." clear that Project, alternatives were, in fact, not considered or evaluated. The consequential increase in traffic A very instructive summary (especially private of the evaluation of cars) will increase alternatives, indicating how congestion, noise and each alternative satisfies the air pollution. Thus project objectives, is signal-free express- provided in the form of Figure 2, at p. 26. The ways and underpasses are band-aid objectives include 'least solutions' which divert capital cost', `least impact of human, political and physical environment',
---
## Page 9
`maximises community financial resources from the actual benefits, and 'long term alternative solutions. return on investment'. The Lahore Master Plan in this regard states in para. 8.5, p.8-20: "Provision of additional road space over and above traffic requirements is a major source of traffic indiscipline and non- judicious way of utilizing network capacity having far reaching effects on traffic control and road discipline." And again in para 8.12.2, p. 8-29: "Provision of additional road space more than the requirements of the traffic does not contribute to the capacity rather it acts otherwise and is source of erroneous drive behaviour and bad safety situation in Lahore." Signal-free/high-speed roads cater to the minority who own cars, and ignore the requirements of the majority middle/low income stratas. The example of the signal- free corridor on Ferozepur Road has made it obvious that citizens find it dangerous to cross that road. Since the operation of that signal-free corridor has commenced, the TEPA has repeatedly had to re-design barriers and shoulders to route traffic in a safe manner, and has also been forced to install cat's-eyes even directly under overhead pedestrian bridges. For the existing Project, the proposed four (4) overhead pedestrian bridges for a 7-km route are insultingly inadequate. 4. Site Selection: "While technical and operational aspects often dominate the initial selection of a site for a proposal, proponents should give equal weight .To the suitability of the site in terms of compatible land use and adequate buffer distancs." EIA-G: pars 2.7, p. 11 Separation Distances: The following performance objectives are listed for Residential areas, hospitals or schools: "Protect As…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.