Pakistan -- Anjun Irfan v Lahore Development Authority (WP 25084/1997, dd 2002.06.14) (Lahore air pollution case)

P L D 2002 Lahore 555
Before Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, J
Mrs. ANJUM IRFAN??.Petitioner
versus
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director?General and others???Respondents
Writ Petition No.25084 of 1997, decided on 14th June, 2002,
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)???
????Chap. XIV [Ss.268 to 294?BJ???Offences affecting public health, safety. convenience, decency and morals???Object of Chap.XIV, P.P.C.??Prohibition of pollution of water does not require any particular mens rea: it is negligence because every one has a duty of care based on common sense not to pollute river water which is used for drinking by men and other animals???Spoliation of water and air may take place due to the activities either of private persons or?corporation or public authorities??? Public spring like a well is reservoir like a Municipal` Water Tank and is dealt with under S.277, P.P.C.???Corruption or fouling of the water of any public spring or the reservoir so as to render it less tit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, is punishable under S.277, P.P.C.
The sole object of including Chapter XIV in the P.P.C. is to safeguard the public health, safety and convenience by causing those acts which make environmental pollution threatening the life of the people, punishable. 1n other words, all those acts which endanger public health directly or indirectly have been brought under the purview of the Penal Code. The Penal Code in Chapter XIV consisting of sections 268??294?B deals with public nuisance, i.e. the offences relating to public health safety convenience, decency and morals. Criminal liability of companies in Pakistan is quite clear. The company is not exempted from criminal liability merely because it is a juristic person and not a natural person. Section 11 of P.P.C. includes any company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not into the word person. The provisions relating to the prohibition of pollution of water do not require any particular mens rea. It is negligent because every one has a duty of care based on common sense not to pollute river water which is used for drinking by men and other animals. The spoliation of water and air may take place due to the activities either of private persons or corporation or public authorities. A public spring like a well is reservoir like a Municipal Water Tank is dealt with under section 277 of P.P.C. Corruption or fouling of the water of any public spring or the reservoir so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, is punishable under this section.
(b) Easements Act (V of 1882)??
????S. 7(f)???Every riparian owner has a right to the use of the water of a natural stream in its natural condition without any obstruction or pollution of that water.
(c) Factories Act (XXV of 1934)???
????S. 14???Disposal of wastes and effluents???Every factory is required to make an effective arrangement for the disposal of waste and effluents in accordance with Rules framed under Factories Act, 1934 which usually require the effluents to be connected to the public drainage system with the prior approval of the Health Authorities???Direct discharge of effluents by the factories into the rivers and seas would be actionable at the instance of those who are aggrieved by the pollution caused by such discharge.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)???
????S. 91(1)(2)???Public nuisance???Either the Advocate?General or two or more persons having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate?General can institute a suit as a tort for declaration and injunction against public nuisance???Section 91(2), C.P.C. cannot be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of a suit which may exist independently of its provision.
(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)???
????S. 133???Removal of nuisance???Magistrate can invoke the power under S.133, Cr.P.C. in the interest of the society in the preservation and improvement of environment.
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and others AIR 1980 SC 1622 fol.
(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)???
????Art. 5(2)???Obedience to Constitution and law???Nobody is above the Constitution, even Chief Executive of Pakistan has to work within the command of the Constitution.
Chaudhry Zahoor Elahi`s case PLD 1975 SC 383 ref.
(g) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)???
????Arts. 9 & 14???Dignity of man??"Life"???Meaning.
Shehla Zia`s case PLD 1994 SC 693 quoted.
(h) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)???
????Arts. 189 & 190???Judgment of Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State???Non?observance by the State functionaries of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court is violation of Art.189 of the Constitution.
(i) Jurisprudence?---
???? Law gives guidance to only law abiding citizens