The CEO of a private company has received notice from an environmental tribunal regarding a complaint contesting the construction of multi-storey residential/commercial towers along the seafront that was allegedly built without receiving the required approval from the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa).
Mohammad Hasnain, the CEO of M/s HMR Waterfront Private Limited, was also instructed by the tribunal presided over by retired Justice Nisar Mohammad Shaikh to submit his response by January 17.
Using Section 26(2)(b) of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014, Mohammad Iqbal Brohi, a resident of Defence Housing Authority, Phase-VI, filed a complaint against the respondent for carrying out construction work on the project without following the law’s requirements.
He claimed that the respondent construction company was an advocate for the “HMR Waterfront Development” project, a a residential-cum commercial multi-storey towers project, on which the construction work had commenced at the site on the Abdul Sattar Edhi Avenue, in Zone-E of the DHA Waterfront, in Phase-VIII.
Unapproved multi-story residential and commercial construction is challenged by a DHA resident.
Further, he claimed that in violation of Section 17 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act of 2014, the respondent had begun construction on the project without first receiving approval from the Sepa.
According to his attorney Irfan Halepota, every project’s proponent is required by Section 17 of the Act to submit an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) of the project to Sepa and receive approval from it prior to starting construction.
He told the tribunal that despite the complainant notifying Sepa of the illegal activity in accordance with Section 26(3)(b) of the Act, 2014, no action had been taken.The attorney further stated that the respondent had claimed in a letter dated August 2, 2021 that the initial or portion of the construction in question was a temporary site or sales office that had been established prior to the start of the EIA process. All construction activities on the site were halted and had been stayed after the builder became aware of the law, Act, and the details of the regulations.
The attorney continued by saying that the respondent had built a substantial structure that was more than just a booking office because some of it went beyond the ground floor and one upper floor, with additional pillars on the roof, indicating the respondent’s intention to build additional upper floors on the roof.
He said the complainant along with his witnesses, Noor Ul Amin and Mohammad Bux, was passing through the site during the month of May 2021 where they saw construction was in progress on the site without any approval from Sepa, which was in violation of law and the complainant took pictures of the construction in the presence of witnesses.
The counsel argued that from the above omission on the part of the respondent, it was clear that he had committed a violation of Section 17 of the Act and was liable to be punished under that law.
Therefore, the tribunal was asked to take cognizance on the matter, issue a warrant against the respondent, who may be prosecuted and punished under the SEP Act, 2014 in the best interest of the justice.
