Dr. Pervaiz Hassan entered appearance on 9?4?2001 and suggested to implead the following as respondents

i) Punjab Environmental Protection Agency, Department through its Director?General, Lahore.
(ii) Pakistan Environmental Protection Council through its Chairman, Islamabad.
The learned amicus curiae also proposed that this Court can suo mote implead the aforesaid parties as respondents without any application. The aforesaid proposal of the learned amicus curiae was accepted and office was directed to send notices to the newly?added aforesaid respondents vide order dated 9?4?2001. All the respondents initially mentioned in the amended writ petition as well as the newly?added respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments. In obedience of the direction of this Court, the respondents filed report and parawise comments.
5. Dr. Pervaiz Hassan learned amicus curiae submits that by virtue of section 15(1) of Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, no person shall operate a motor vehicle from which air pollutants or noise are being emitted in an amount, concentration or level which is in excess of the National Environmental Quality Standards or where applicable the standards established under clause (g) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the aforesaid Act. He further submits that it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to issue a notification under the aforesaid section and instructions to the public functionaries to comply with the command of section 15 of the aforesaid Act in letter and spirit. The respondents failed to comply with the command of the aforesaid section, therefore, failed to discharge their statutory duty. He further submits that by virtue of section 15(2) of the aforesaid Act, Federal Agency is statutory bound to direct the competent Authority that any motor vehicle or class of vehicles shall install such pollution control devices or other equipment or use such fuels or undergo such maintenance or testing as may be prescribed. The competent Authority has issued Notification dated 24?8?1993 to the following effect:??
1. Smoke 40% or 2 on the Ringle to be To be compared compared with Ringle mann. with Ringle mann Scale during engine mann, chart Chart at a dis at a distance acceleration tance of 6 metres mode of 6 metres or more. or more.2. Carbon Emission Standards: Monoxide New , Used Vehicles Vehicles 4.5% 6% under idling conditions: Non?despersive infrated detection through gas analyzer.3. Noise 85 db (A) Soundmetre at 7?5 metres from the source. Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development issued a Notification dated 27?10?1998 to the following effect:?? 1. Clauses (a), (e), (f), (i), (j), (k), The system and proce (1), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s) dures for monitoring and (t) of subsection (1) of section 6 and measurements under and subsection (2) of that section. section 6(1)(i), shall be established by the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency.2. Clauses (t), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of section 73. Section 12
He further submits that authorities under E.P.D. Act, be directed that industries and projects comply with the prescribed N.E.Q.S. to avoid air and water pollution and that the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder must be strictly complied with. He further submits that competent Authority shall have to send cases of the offenders to the Environmental Magistrate; He further submits that E.P.D. Authorities be directed to initiate proceedings against the offenders under section 16 of the aforesaid Act. He further submits that this Court may direct the Federal Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development and P. E. P. C. to develop the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and also necessary ?direction be issued to the P.E.P.C. to revise, strengthen and enforce the N.E.Q.S. emission from vehicular traffic and emission and effluents from industries. He further submits that Federal Government be directed to notify the rules for pollution control devices and fuels by virtue of section 15(2) of the Act. He further submits that respondents are duty bound to take action against the offenders in accordance with law. He further submits that superior Courts have already prescribed parameters qua the controversy involved in this case but the respondents failed to implement the judgments of superior Courts. He further submits that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution whereas the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:??
(1) PLD 1992 Journal 21.
(2) Ch. Riaz Mahmood Yazdani v. The Federation of Pakistan (1990 CLC 1406).
(3) Pollution of Environment Caused by Smoke, Emitting Vehicles, Traffic Muddle (1996 SCMR 543).
(4) Human Rights Case (Environment Pollution in Balochistah (PLD 1994 SC 102).
(5) Ms. Shehla Zia and others v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693).
(6) General Secretary, West Pakistan Salt Mines Labour Union (CBA) Khewra, Jhelum v. The Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, Lahore (1994 SCMR 2061).
(7) M.D. Tahir, Advocate and others v. Provincial Government, through its Secretary, Forest Department, Lahore and another (1995 CLC 1730).
(8) Mst. Ameer Bano v. S.E., Highways (PLD 1996 Lahore 592).
(9) Asfand Yar. Khan v. Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, Islamabad and 3 others (1996 SCMR 1421).
(10) Pakistan Chest Foundation and others v. Government of Pakistan (1997 CLC 1379).
(11) Abdul Qayyum v. D.G., EPA.(1999 PLR 640)
(12) Tanvir Arif v. Federation of Pakistan (1999 CLC 981).
(13) M.D. Tahir. v. WAPDA and others 2000 MLD 851).
(14) Abdul Latif v. Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal (2001 CLC 1139).
He summed up his arguments that action of the respondents is in violation of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution.
6. Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney?General for Pakistan submits that the Pakistan Environmental Protection .Act, 1997 established the Pakistan Environmental Protection Council (PEPC) as an apex and supreme environmental policy?making body in the country and the Environmental Protection Agencies (EPAs) both at the Federal and Provincial levels to administer and implement the provision of the Act. The Act itself has empowered Federal and Provincial EPAs, and provide a legal framework, to control pollution caused by motor vehicles, industries and control water, soil and noise pollution etc. The Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development to further strengthen the powers of the Provincial Governments, has already delegated most of its and Federal EPA`s powers, functions and responsibilities to the Provincial Governments vide Notification dated 27?10?1997, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the competent body framed the law, therefore, writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time.
7. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate?General, Punjab, submits that power is vested with Punjab Environmental Protection Department in view of section 15(1) of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, the competent Authority did not frame the rules, regulation and procedure under section 31 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, respondent No. 12, Punjab Environmental Protection Department is not in a position to implement provisions of section 15(1) of the Act. He further submits that competent Authority has delegated powers to Environment Protection Agency, Punjab in view of section 26 of the aforesaid Act. The agency is fully functional. He further submits that competent Authority has not framed regulations under sections 14 and 15 of the aforesaid Act, therefore, Environmental Magistrate under section 24(2) read with section 17(2) and (4) are not notified by the Federal Government. He further submits that Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab is already functioning in view of provision of section 16 of the Act. Since the enforcement of the aforesaid Act, Punjab Environmental Protection Agency has referred 50` cases to Environmental Tribunal for initiating proceedings under section 17 of the Act. 30 Radio talks have been arrived on the subject of environment protection and 15 T.V. interviews have been telecast to throw light on the subject of protection of environment to enlighten general public. More than 60 lectures have been delivered in different educational institutions on the subject. He further submits that respondent No?10 Secretary Housing and Physical Planning Government of the ?Punjab has been performing his duties successfully in accordance with Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997. Vehicular Smoke Emitting Control Advisory Cell has been established in organizational set up of Environmental Protection Department at Lahore to control vehicular pollution. A separate campaign has been launched in different times