- Stakeholders say infrastructural development along Lahore canal must be taken by PHA under the chairmanship of Punjab CM
- EPD spokesperson says EPD has nothing to do with the 2013 Act but reviews any applications for infrastructural development under Punjab Environmental Protection Act 1997
The Environment Protection Department (EPD) called a meeting of the advisory committee on the canal widening last Thursday which stakeholders have termed “against the law”, asserting that decisions on infrastructure development along the Lahore canal “must be” taken by the Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA) under the chairmanship of Punjab chief minister.
Talking to Pakistan Today, committee-member and renowned lawyer Rafay Alam said, “The committee is now being asked to give approval for infrastructure developments that it does not have the power or function to approve and which are, the very antithesis of its being.”
According to the Lahore Canal Heritage Park Act, 2013, the green belt along the Lahore Canal is a “heritage park”. The preamble of the Act declares the green belts on both sides of the canal a “public trust” and part of the heritage of the city of Lahore and states that its purpose is the conservation of the Lahore Canal as a heritage park.
The powers and functions of the committee are to “prepare and administer” the heritage park but no effort has been made to follow the directions of the committee with regards to demarcation of boundary of the heritage park.
THE ‘ILLEGAL’ MEETING:
The fourth meeting of the advisory committee was to be held under the chairmanship of EPD Secretary Iqbal Chohan but was instead chaired by the director general (DG) with the proposed agenda of widening of the Canal Bank Road from Doctor’s Hospital to Thokar Niaz Baig; from Mall Road to Harbanspura; and from Harbanspura to Jallo.
However, stakeholders maintained that EPD breached rules by calling a meeting with the aforementioned agenda and quoted the minutes of the third meeting “that these draft rules must be submitted for approval by the Competent Authority within a week’s time”.
It has been several months since but the committee has not been informed whether such an approval has been obtained and the assumption is that no such approval has been sought or granted.
Giving his views about the legality of the committee’s fourth meeting, Alam – who also wrote a letter to the EPD secretary and minister – said, “I again reiterate that, regardless of the subject matter to be discussed by the committee, the proper way to proceed would be to have these rules notified so that the committee’s meetings are in accordance with law.”
He further observed that at the outset, the agenda items are “activities that are prohibited under Section 3(5) of the Lahore Canal Heritage Park Act, 2013.
Another excerpt from the letter, available with Pakistan Today, states, “I will also point out that under the Act, if TEPA is desirous of undertaking infrastructure projects that affect the Heritage Park, it must seek the permission of PHA. Section 5(8) of the Act sets out the various considerations TEPA must respond to if it seeks such permission. And I note the notice and agenda of the fourth meeting of the committee do not carry any of the information that is legally required for TEPA to be eligible to make such a request for permission.”
CAUGHT IN THE 1997 AND 2013 ACTS:
Speaking to Pakistan Today, EPD spokesperson Nasimur Rehman said that TEPA has filed a separate application with EPD, which the department has its own mechanisms to review and examine under the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997.
“TEPA has also filed a separate application with PHA which is also looking into the matter. It is true that the 2013 Heritage Act has no connection with the EPD, however, if someone applies for the review, we have to move according to the 1997 Act,” he said.
EPD has held a public hearing, constituted meetings of experts and have incorporated views from both sides on the matter, and any decision that shall come will be strictly “on merit”, he added.
“No direction can go against the directions passed by any court of law,” said the EDP spokesperson.
