Facts and procedural history
D. G. Khan Cement operated a plant at Khairpur in the Kahoon Valley, District Chakwal, in the Salt Range.
A provincial notification of 8 March 2018 prohibited new cement plants and enlargement or expansion of existing ones in a designated “Negative Area” within Chakwal and Khushab.
It amended an earlier notification under sections 3 and 11 of the Punjab Industries (Control on Establishment and Enlargement) Ordinance, 1963.
The company challenged the Province’s authority, the scientific basis and the effect on its business and equality rights.1
The environmental study
In 2016, the Mines and Minerals Secretary reported ecological harm from existing Salt Range cement plants.
NESPAK and Sogreah then conducted a multidisciplinary study across Chakwal, Jhelum, Khushab and Mianwali.
At sampled locations, they recorded an average groundwater-table decline of 64 feet, dried shallow wells and agricultural risks.
They recommended a 979 km² negative zone within an 8,872 km² study area, with technical reassessment every ten years. The Provincial Cabinet adopted the recommendation.2
Study area and proposed negative zone
The diagram shows the relationship between the two areas. It is not a map or scale drawing.
Issues
- Could the 1963 Ordinance authorise a Negative Area spanning more than one district?
- Did the scientific record rationally support the prohibition?
- Did the restriction breach Article 18’s business protection or Article 25’s equality guarantee?3
Holding
The Court upheld the notification.
Section 3 requires prior written government permission to establish or enlarge an industrial undertaking. The Ordinance’s planning purpose permits zoning for health, nuisance, ecology and public-interest concerns.
The problem crossed district boundaries, supporting provincial action. The multidisciplinary study gave the restriction a rational basis.
The ban was not treated as unchangeable: it could be reconsidered when groundwater recharge and ecological resilience justified that step.4
Reasoning
Statutory authority and constitutional rights
The Court read organised, planned industrial growth to include sustainable development, climate change, pollution and resource conservation.
These concerns connected with constitutional protection of life and dignity.
Article 18 expressly permits qualifications prescribed by law. The Ordinance already required permission for industrial undertakings, so the embargo did not violate that Article.
The study-based restriction pursued planned growth rather than favouring or punishing a producer. That answered the Article 25 objection.5
Judicial review of scientific assessments
Competing expert views and a multidisciplinary official assessment.
- Does the Government have lawful authority?
- Does the evidence rationally support its decision?
- Were findings distorted to obtain a preferred result?
The court does not rerun the expert study. It still reviews legality and rationality.
Judicial review of scientific evidence
The company submitted its own groundwater report. It focused on one metric; the official study considered interacting risks across disciplines.
The Court declined to substitute its own assessment for a reasonable expert opinion. Government could rely on reasonable opinions from qualified specialists even where experts disagreed.
But scientific complexity did not remove judicial scrutiny.
The Court still had to check lawful authority and rationality, including whether officials distorted scientific findings to reach a preferred outcome.6
The precautionary principle
The reports identified serious environmental threats, especially to an aquifer needing recharge.
The Negative Area was understood as an environmentally fragile habitat requiring protection while it recovered.
Under the precautionary principle, lack of full scientific certainty did not justify postponing cost-effective measures against environmental degradation. That supported restricting plant enlargement.7
Climate adaptation and intergenerational justice
Water stress and agricultural vulnerability made adaptation relevant to the dispute. The notification functioned as a climate-resilience measure.
The Court connected development with intergenerational justice: present decisions must preserve the ecological conditions on which later generations depend.8
Analysis
The restriction had a statutory basis, defined boundaries and an expert record, together with identified water stress and provision for review.
It did not require treating every ecological interest as a legal person. These grounds are relevant to review in other administrative cases.9
Deference to scientific expertise still requires a lawful mandate and an intelligible explanation of the supporting evidence.
An operator cannot defeat a multidisciplinary assessment merely by isolating one disputed measure or proposing unverified technology.
Equally, review remains available for irrationality, selective science and institutional failure.10
Precaution and periodic reassessment
- Serious ecological risk
An aquifer and landscape need protection.
- Restrict expansion
Full scientific certainty is not required before precautionary protection.
- Assess recovery
Reconsider restrictions when recharge and resilience support a change.
The study recommended technical review every ten years. The passage of time alone does not establish recovery. Study record ↗
Practical implications
Regulators should document cumulative effects, consult operators, explain boundaries and provide for periodic review.
Project proponents need verified technology, hydrogeological evidence and lawful environmental approvals.
Courts should identify the source of power and review the scientific decision-making process, rather than reproduce the expert investigation themselves.
Where serious harm remains plausible, precaution matters. Restrictions should also respond to changing conditions.11
Conclusion
D. G. Khan Cement upheld a bounded, reviewable restriction on cement-plant expansion, supported by statutory authority and scientific evidence.
The Court applied precaution and considered the interests of future generations in assessing the restriction.12