DHA's petition dismissed: SHC allows construction of flyover, underpasses in Clifton

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday threw out the petition of Defence Housing Authority (DHA) through which it challenged the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency's environmental impact assessment (EIA) report that accorded its approval to construction of a flyover and two underpasses in Clifton. Headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, a division bench of the SHC announced its reserved verdict on a petition, terming it meritless.
The DHA counsel submitted in the court that during a public hearing on the project DHA officials, residents and representatives of the Hindu community raised their objections on the construction of a flyover and two underpasses as the project encroached upon the Jahangir Kothari Parade, a heritage site and also caused damage to the historical structures of the Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi shrine and the Sri Ratneshwar Mahadev Temple in the vicinity. But their objections were not taken into account prior to the issuance of the EIA report.
He added the Sepa issued the EIA report without complying with provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1997 and other related environment laws. The counsel said the report was based upon incorrect facts and figures and insufficient data. Besides, the major stakeholders were not consulted nor their objections were considered. The petitioner requested the court to declare the EIA report as illegal and annul it. After hearing arguments from the counsel for petitioner and official respondents, the court had earlier reserved the verdict. On Friday, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, who headed a division bench, announced the judgement, reading out the last portion of the 16-page verdict.
The bench observed that a perusal of record reflects that the comments received through the public hearing were duly tabulated, examined and response of the proponent was sought, therefore, the DHA's contention to that extent appears to be misconceived. It noted that a perusal of the form for the decision of an EIA also negated the contention of DHA's counsel that the Sepa ought to have accepted or rejected DHA's objections through speaking order. The court held that in fact the law does not require Sepa to adjudicate on the grievance of stakeholders while approving the EIA. However, law provides for reasoning only when the agency after examining the EIA rejects the project being contrary to the environmental objectives.
In case EIA is granted law only provides that the approval shall specify the conditions subject to which it is accorded and in the instant case approval specifies such condition on the basis which approval was accorded. The court ruled: "In view of what has been discussed above we find this petition meritless and dismiss the same."