Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SIKANDAR DADA and another VS Respondent: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, SINDH and 2 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Gulzar Ahmed, Arshad Siraj Memon Title:SIKANDAR DADA and another vs ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL,
SINDH and 2 others Case No.: Constitutional Petition No,D-590 of 2010 Date of Judgment:2010-03-15 Reported As: 2011 YLR 1623 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER Mr. Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui has filed counter affidavit to the petition, copy of which has been supplied to the Counsel for the petitioner in Court today. The counsel for the petitioner No,1 states that the word 'person' has been defined in clause (xxxii) of section 2 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act includes a corporate body and that section 18 of the same Act provides for punishment of offences committed by corporate bodies under the Act. He states that the legal status of the petitioner No,1 as Chairman/Chief Executive of the petitioner No,2 is distinct and they are also distinct persons in the law having their own individual rights and obligations and that any violation of one cannot be enforced upon the other. He states that petitioner No,1 cannot be made personally liable for the acts of petitioner No,2 which is a corporate body and that issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner No, I was not in accordance with law. He has prayed that bailable warrants issued by respondent No,1 be quashed. The counsel for the respondent No,3 states that petitioner No,1 has a remedy of making of an application before the respondent No,1 for his acquittal and the Tribunal can pass appropriate order in this regard if the petitioner No,1 is able to satisfy the Tribunal that he is not liable to be proceeded in the complaint filed by the respondent No,3. Consequently, we dispose of the petition by ordering that while bailable warrants against the petitioner No,1 are recalled, the petitioner No,1 will appear before the Tribunal on 26-3-2010 when the matter is stated to be fixed before it and will also be represented by a Counsel and may make appropriate application for dropping of the proceedings against petitioner No,1 upon which the Tribunal will pass order in accordance with law.
---
## Page 2
Counsel for the petitioner' No,2 states that the petitioner No,2 has serious reservation regarding the very maintainability of the complaint filed with the respondent No,1 and that he will file a separate petition challenging the same. He may file a separate petition in accordance with law. The listed application is, also disposed of.