CHIEF Justice Mr. Ian Chang, S.C., has issued a Rule Nisi of Mandamus directed to the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), compelling that body to perform its public duty to monitor the environmental regulations, so as to prevent or control environmental pollution. This is to ensure that such pollution is maintained  within the recommended  limits set by the Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS), which said pollution is alleged to have been caused by the operation of paddy-drying and rice-milling activities at Dryshore, Essequibo Coast carried on by Wazir Hussain, on the ground that the EPA’s  failure to monitor or control environmental pollution and to enforce penalties as provided for under the Act is unlawful, arbitrary,  unreasonable, malicious and  capricious.

The order was made after a motion had been filed by Attorney-at-Law  Mr. Robert Ramcharran on behalf of Harrinarain of Dryshore, Essequibo Coast, who claims that Wazir Hussain has a large rice mill, operated by very large engines which, when in operation, make loud  excessive and unbearable noise.

The said rice mill, Harrinarain claims, is operated throughout the year, and during the rice crop, operates 24 hours per day. Harrinarain also alleges that Wazir Hussain  would dry paddy and burn the paddy husk, causing the  dust and smoke emanating  therefrom to enter his house and make his skin itchy,  accumulate on the walls, bed, and everything in his house, making living in his home very uncomfortable for himself and family.

Harrinarain also alleges that after several complaints had been made to the Environmental Protection Agency, it investigated the matter and did find that the noise levels coming from the rice mill were above the Guyana National Bureau of Standards recommended limits for noise levels. The EPA had also found that dust pollution was evident.   

The agency’s findings were communicated in writing to Harrinarain in June 2010, but Harrinarain claims that despite his numerous reminders, the agency has taken no step to enforce provisions of the Act which specifically authorise the EPA to prevent any person from undertaking any activity which pollutes the environment, or permits any person to discharge any contaminant in the environment in an amount or level in excess of that prescribed by the regulations.

The said Act authorises the agency to impose certain penalties against anyone who contravenes the provisions of the Act, and this the agency has so far failed to do.

Mr. Ramcharran is contending that the EPA’s failure to enforce the environmental regulations in a timely manner amounts to a refusal to act on the part of the agency, and any such refusal is unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, malicious and capricious.

Further, the attorney is arguing that in refusing to act, the EPA has abdicated   its statutory duty to protect the provisions of the Act from being violated, and this conduct ought not to be condoned by the court.

The court has adjourned the matter for 29th October 2012, when the agency must show cause why the Rule Nisi of Mandamus should not be made absolute.