SC tells KP to approve new stone-crushing rules in 30 days

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday granted one month to the Government of Khyber Punktunakhwa for approval of new rules and regulations from the National Environmental Council for stone-crushing industries.

A five-member Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan heard a suo motu case regarding stone crushing. The additional advocate general of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) informed the court that there are 903 stone crushing plants in the province adding that out of these, 544 are operational, while 230 are under construction. He further submitted that 37 stone crushers have been issued show-cause notices while 10 have been sealed for violating regulations. Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar inquired from the law officer about the legal framework for establishing stone-crushing units.

The AAG of KP informed the court that previously, stone-crushing units were not allowed within one kilometre of residential areas, adding new laws reduced the area to 300-500 meters in rural areas and urban residential zones respectively. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail emphasized the need for balancing employment opportunities and environmental concerns.

An environment expert Waqar Zakaria noted that if the wind direction carries dust towards residential areas, the distance regulations become meaningless. He further submitted planting trees along with irrigation system to prevent dust particles from reaching populated areas was recommended. The AAG assured the court that once rules are finalized, their implementation will follow.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, however, observed that here constitution itself is not followed while the law officer is talking about rules When the AAG requested three months for approval of rules, Justice Kakar questioned whether people would keep dying during this time.

Khwaja Haris, counsel for stone crushers, argued that they had filed an appeal against the Supreme Court’s July 11 order. He further submitted that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the court cannot rule beyond the requested relief.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked the counsel as to whether this restriction applied only after the 26th Amendment or retrospectively. Justice Aamer Farooq observed that in that case, it must also be clarified to what extent the court can assess the validity of a law. Khawaja Haris submitted that the core issue was simply the required distance between stone crushers and residential areas. Justice Hashim Kakar observed that once the rules are finalized, the review petition might become infructuous. Later, the court granted one month to the KP government to approve the new regulations from the National Environmental Council for stone crushers and adjourned further hearing.

Meanwhile, the constitutional bench while hearing the matter pertaining to the appointment of judges in Gilgit-Baltistan sought the federal government’s stance on the conditional withdrawal request filed by the Gilgit-Baltistan government. The court directed the federal government to present its position in the next hearing and adjourned the case for two weeks.

Senior lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan informed the court that he was appointed as the counsel for the Gilgit-Baltistan government in this case however, he has been informed that his services are no longer required and now, the Advocate General of Gilgit-Baltistan will argue before the court. Makhdoom also told the court that the GB government has filed a request to withdraw the case.

During the hearing, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that the Gilgit-Baltistan government does not just want to withdraw the case but also wants the Chief Minister’s consultation to be made mandatory. Additional Attorney General, however, responded that the federal government does not accept making the Chief Minister’s consultation mandatory.

At this, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned under which law is Gilgit-Baltistan being governed. The Additional Attorney General replied that all administrative matters are being currently followed under the 2018 0rder which mandates consultation with the governor. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail however, advised that both governments should sit together and resolve this issue. “Do we need to tell the governments what they should do,” Justice Mandokhail questioned. A representative of the Gilgit-Baltistan Bar Association informed the court that the lawyers in GB have been on strike for five months while the Supreme Appellate Court has been non-functional for 10 years. The court sought the federal government’s stance on the conditional withdrawal request filed by the Gilgit-Baltistan government. The court also directed the federal government to present its position in the next hearing and adjourned the matter for two weeks.

Similarly, the Constitutional bench also heard a case regarding reserved sanitary and sweeper jobs for the Christian community. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Registrar’s Office’s objections.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan reprimanded the female petitioner for her conduct while appearing before the court. “You do not know the proper procedure for appearing before the court,” Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan told the petitioner and asked if she was an advocate of the Supreme Court. The female petitioner told the court that she is a High Court advocate and petitioner in this case “Many senior lawyers have appeared before us, but none have raised their voice like this,” Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan told the petitioner. During the hearing, the petitioner argued on minority rights.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that many members of the Christian community hold good jobs adding that Christians have also become CSP (Civil Service of Pakistan) officers. You claim that Christians are only given sweeper jobs,” Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan told the petitioner. The petitioner, however, submitted that newspaper job advertisements specifically mention Christians for such positions. At this, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that if that is the case, then Christian community members should choose not to apply for those jobs. The judge added that many Christian individuals are MNAs (Members of the National Assembly), MPAs (Members of the Provincial Assembly), and Senators, Justice Afghan remarked. Later, the court dismissed the petition and upheld the objections of the Registrar’s office.