Lahore High Court: In a petition challenging an order passed by the Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority (PERA) against a plastic manufacturing unit operating in a residential area, Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J., stated that environmental protection is an enforceable fundamental right under Article 9-A of the Constitution. The Court held that industrial activity involving noise, vibrations, hazardous material and safety risks cannot be permitted in violation of environmental, zoning and public-safety laws merely on the ground of commercial convenience or livelihood. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to supervise the dismantling and removal of machinery and permitted future use of the premises exclusively for residential purposes.
Background
The petitioner challenged an order dated 30-1-2026 passed by the Hearing Officer/Assistant Commissioner, Tehsil Shalimar, Lahore, functioning under PERA. The impugned order found the petitioner guilty of repeated violations of applicable laws, including the Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority Act, 2024, the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, and relevant zoning regulations prohibiting industrial activity in residential areas.
The authorities recorded that the operation of “Hamid Plastic Factory” in a residential locality was causing nuisance to residents through excessive noise, vibrations, and emission or discharge of hazardous substances resulting in air, water and land pollution. Serious safety concerns regarding high-voltage electrical installations supplying electricity to the factory were also noted.
The petitioner was directed to relocate the factory to an appropriate industrial zone, failing which coercive measures, including demolition, sealing of premises, confiscation of machinery, recovery of fines and initiation of criminal proceedings, were contemplated. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an affidavit undertaking to permanently close the factory, dismantle the machinery, and refrain from carrying out any production, manufacturing, commercial or semi-commercial activity at the premises in future.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court observed that Article 9-A of the Constitution expressly guarantees every person the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The constitutional guarantee is not merely aspirational but imposes a corresponding duty upon the State to protect individuals and communities from environmental degradation, pollution and activities posing threats to public health and safety.
The Court emphasized that Article 9-A elevates environmental protection to an independent and enforceable fundamental right. Therefore, public authorities must adopt a preventive, rather than merely remedial, approach. Applying the precautionary principle, the Court held that authorities are not required to wait until the anticipated harm becomes irreversible before taking regulatory action.
The Court further noted that the right to carry on a lawful trade or business under Article 18 of Constitution is subject to statutory qualifications and regulatory restrictions. Such right cannot be construed as conferring an entitlement to operate an industrial unit in violation of zoning laws, environmental regulations or public-safety requirements. The Court held that commercial convenience or private economic interest cannot prevail over residents’ rights to health, safety, peaceful enjoyment of their homes and a clean and sustainable environment.
The Court also observed that industrial and manufacturing activities involving noise, vibrations, hazardous materials, heavy machinery and high-voltage electrical installations necessarily require strict compliance with environmental, zoning and safety regulations. Conducting such activities in a residential locality exposes residents to unacceptable risks and cannot be justified solely on the basis that the operator derives livelihood or commercial benefit from the enterprise.
At the same time, the Court stressed that the exercise of regulatory and coercive powers must remain proportionate. Since the petitioner had voluntarily undertaken to shut down the factory and dismantle the machinery, the objective of the impugned order could be achieved without immediately resorting to harsher coercive measures.
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to supervise the dismantling and removal of machinery and permitted future use of the premises exclusively for residential purposes. Any future industrial, manufacturing, commercial or semi-commercial activity at the premises was prohibited. The authorities were granted liberty to proceed in terms of the impugned order upon any breach of the undertaking.
[Nadeem Ahmed v. Commissioner Lahore, W.P. No. 33094 of 2026, decided on 19-06-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Rai Usman Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner; Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate General Punjab; Muhammad Razman Dhuddi, Advocate for Respondent 8; Barrister Ch. Mudassir Ishaq, Chief Prosecutor, Ehsan ur Rehman, Assistant Manager (legal) and Zeba Rani, Prosecutor on behalf of PEERA Department.
