INDEX
Contents
Introductory Note
Court: Definition
Functions of Court
Environment Court
• Definition
• Constitution:
• Purpose
Power and functions of the Environment Court
Practical Scenario of the Environment Court
Legal loopholes and deficiencies of the Environment Court Act, 2000
Environment related court in other countries of Indian subcontinent: A comparative study
• India: The National Environment Tribunal
• Pakistan: The Environment Tribunal
• Comparative study
Recommendations
Conclusion

Introductory Note
Environmental Law is a source and foundation of orderly response to Global and National environmental problems. International Environmental Law is the principal means by which community of nations builds and expresses international consensus on environment and development challenges. National Environmental Law is the most effective instrument for translating environment and development policies into action. Judiciary is a key mechanism for ensuring legal effectiveness of environmental law. A judiciary well informed of the rapidly expanding environmental law, can play a critical role: in interpretation, development and enforcement of environmental law, enforcing environmental rights, public access to judicial procedures, exchange of judgments, sharing information on environmental law, policy and environmental jurisprudence.

The purpose of this assignment is to focus on the function of the Environment Courts of Bangladesh established under the Environment Court Act, 2000, to examine its efficiency and effectiveness, to point out different lacunas of the statute and of the judicial process, to take a short look at the statutes of the Indian sub-continent in this field, to do a comparative study among the laws of this sub-continent and to forward recommendations for the effective working of the Court and thus ensuring proper environmental justice.

Court: Definition
The word court comes from the French cour, an enclosed yard, which derives from the Latin form cortem, the accusative case of cohors, which again means an enclosed yard or the occupants of such a yard (from hortus = garden). The meaning of a judicial assembly is first attested in the 12th century, and derives from the earlier usage to designate a sovereign and his entourage, which met to adjudicate disputes in such an enclosed yard. The verb "to court", meaning to win favor, derives from the same source since people traveled to the sovereign's court to win his favor.
A court is a form judicial body, often a governmental institution, with the authority to adjudicate legal disputes between parties and carry out the administration of justice in civil, criminal, and administrative matters in accordance with the rule of law.

In both common law and civil law legal systems, courts are the central means for dispute resolution, and it is generally understood that all persons have an ability to bring their claims before a court. Similarly, the rights of those accused of a crime include the right to present a defense before a court.
The system of courts that interpret and apply the law are collectively known as the judiciary. The place where a court sits is known as a venue. The room where court proceedings occur is known as a courtroom, and the building as a courthouse; court facilities range from simple and very small facilities in rural communities to huge buildings in large cities.

The practical authority given to the court is known as its jurisdiction (Latin jus dicere) -- the court's power to decide certain kinds of questions or petitions put to it.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary-
A court is a governmental body consisting of one or more judges who sit to adjudicate disputes and administer justice.

According to William J. Hughes, Federal Practice, Jurisdiction & Procedure-
A court …. is a permanently organized body, with independent judicial powers defined by law, meeting at a time and place fixed by law for the judicial public administration of Justice.

According to William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England- a court is constituted by a minimum of three parties: the actor or plaintiff, who complains of an injury done; the reus or defendant, who is called upon to make satisfaction for it, and the judex or judicial power, which is to examine the truth of the fact, to determine the law arising upon that fact, and, if any injury appears to have been done, to ascertain and by its officers to apply a legal remedy. It is also usual in the superior courts to have attorneys, and advocates or counsel, as assistants. , though, often, courts consist of additional attorneys, bailiffs, reporters, and perhaps a jury.
The term "the court" is also used to refer to the presiding officer or officials, usually one or more judges. The judge or panel of judges may also be collectively referred to as "the bench" (in contrast to attorneys and barristers, collectively referred to as "the bar").

In the United States, and other common law jurisdictions, the term "court" (in the case of U.S. federal courts) by law is used to describe the judge himself or herself.

In the United States, the legal authority of a court to take action is based on personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and venue over the parties to the litigation.

Functions of Court:
The functions of the Courts are as follows:
 Keeping the peace in the society
 To settle dispute
 Judicial law making
 Constitutional decisions
 Procedural law making
 Review of administrative decisions
 Enforcement of Judicial decision
 To ensure administration of Justice
 Enforcement of rights and Obligations
 Implementation of Law and Justice

Environment Court
Definition:
Environment Court means an Environment Court constituted under the Environment Court Act, 2000.

Constitution:
(1) For the carrying out the purpose of this Act, the Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, establish one or more Environment Court in each Division.
(2) An Environment Court shall be constituted with one judge and, in consultation with the Supreme Court, the Government shall- (a) appoint an officer of the judicial service of the rank of Joint District Judge, and such Judge shall dispose of cases only under environmental laws; and
(b) if it considers necessary, appoint a judge of the rank of Joint District Judge for a Division or a specified part thereof to act as the judge of an Environment Court in addition to his ordinary functions, and the said judge shall, in addition to his ordinary functions, dispose of the cases that fall within the jurisdiction of an Environment Court.
(3) Each Environment Court shall have its seat at the Divisional Headquarter; however, the Government if it considers necessary, may, by general or specific order published in the official gazette, specify places outside the Divisional Headquarter where the court can hold its sittings.
(4) If more than one Environment Court are established in any Division, the Government shall, by notification in the official gazette, specify the territorial jurisdiction of each such Court.

Purpose:
Environmental related issues become as one of the critical problems today. Human being is being threatened due to the damage to the environment. World community has to arrange environment related seminar, symposium throughout the world to protect environment pollution. As a part of this, our country also faces huge environmental problem. People are threatened due to environmental destruction caused by imbalance in environment. So, Government has to face a huge challenge because the pressure of cases relating civil and criminal already created great hindrance to the end of justice. So, Government felt the necessity of a separate Environment Court, where only environment related case will be tried. As a result, the Environment Court came into force by the operation of the Environment Court Act, 2000.

Power and functions of the Environment Court
The Environment Court established under section 4 of the Environment Court Act, 2000 (Act No. 11 of 2000), shall be competent to exercise any power conferred on it by this Act or any other environmental law which is stated in section 8(4) of this Act.
The power and functions of the Environment Court under the Environment Court Act, 2000 and Environment Conservation Act, 1995 are as follows –

Power to take cognizance:
According to section 5(1) of the Environment Court Act, 2000 a case shall be directly instituted in an environment court for trial of an offence or for compensation under an environmental law and in that case only the environment court can take cognizance and hold proceedings for trial.

Power to issue directions:
Under section 5(2) of the Environment Court Act, 2000 the environment court shall have power to issue direction to the offender or other relevant persons-
1. not to repeat or continue any noxious act;
2. to take remedial or preventive measures;
3. to submit a report to the Director General or other appropriate authority, where direction issued under clause(2).

Power to impose penalty and fine:
The environment court can impose imprisonment and fine as is enumerated in section 15 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995. Besides, under section 5A of the Environment Court Act, 2000 this court can impose penalty for violating the court’s order as (a) not to repeat or continue any noxious act, (b) to take remedial or preventive measures, (c) to submit a report to the Director General or other appropriate authority.

Power to impose compensation: According to section 7 and 9 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995 the Director General can impose compensation upon the violator. This power can also be exercised by the environment court when the DG files a suit for compensation under section 15B of the Environment Conservation Act, 1995.

Power to investigate and inspect:
According to section 10 of the Environment Court Act, 2000 the environment court has power to inspect any property, object or place of occurrence of an offence after serving notice on the parties or their lawyers as to the place or time of inspection. The inspection report shall be treated as evidence in the trial. The inspection can be done at any stage of the trial of a case.

Power to order for further investigation:
According to section 8(3) of the Environment Court Act, 2000, where the investigation officer has submitted his report about any matter to the environment court, it can give order to hold further investigation of the offence in relation to which a case is pending before it.

Review of directions:
Under the proviso of section 5(2) of the Environment Court Act, 2000, the environment court can review its direction which is issued under section 5(2), on application of the person directed. To review its direction the court shall give an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the DG and dispose of the case within 30 days of the application.

Practical Scenario of the Environment Court
The Environment Court Act, 2000 was passed on April 10, 2000. Though the Environment Conservation Act was passed in 1995, the government took five years to enact the Environment Court Act to set up special courts conducted by a joint district judge. the Practical Scenario of the Environment Court are given below:
• The Environment Court Act, 2000 requires one or more environment courts at every divisional headquarters. The government has so far established three environment courts – two in Dhaka and Chittagong in 2002 and a third in Sylhet in 2005 – and an Environment Appellate Court in Dhaka in 2002, although the law stipulates establishment of at least one court in each divisional headquarters. But Khulna, Barisal and Rajshahi are yet to have any environment courts even after a decade.
• Syeda Rizwana Hasan, executive director of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (Bela), said that the foremost impediment to implementation of the legislations is the fact that a case under the law is tried at a lower court. It means that a litigant has to fight a long legal battle against appeals at district judge court, High Court and Appellate Division. “One potential barrier is that victims of environmental degradation are invariably poor and powerless. On the other hand, offenders are always wealthy and politically powerful,” she said. The affected people usually lack confidence in fighting against the powerful, she said, adding that the DoE too sometimes cannot implement the law because of influence of offenders and technical limitations.
• Experts, lawyers and environmental campaigners said that the complicated legal procedures, delay in disposal of the cases, low rate of conviction and no order for compensation were the reasons for reluctance of the affected people to file cases seeking redress.
• One can file a written complaint with the department and it will ask an inspector or an authorised person to investigate the allegations. The inspector has to submit an investigation report within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. If the inspector submits a charge sheet against a polluter, the environment court can take cognisance of the offence. Director general of the Bangladesh Environment Lawyers Association, Sayeda Rezwana Hasan, told, ‘Waiting for 60 days is difficult in most of the cases of environmental pollution as things become more critical for lack of an immediate action.’ ‘This discourages our organization and the people from filing cases against pollution,’ she said.
• Dhaka University’s law department teacher, Asif Nazrul said that environment court remained inactive since its inception because of certain conditions in the environment law about filing an environment related case. He shared his frustration that so many environmental degrading incidents were taking place everyday but no organisation or person are filing any case against the perpetrators due to corruption in the department of environment and complexities of the related law.

• Environment lawyer Iqbal Kabir said that The department works as a police station and unless an authorised inspector of the department gives any report on the complaint, the court cannot take up any case for trial.

• DoE Dhaka Division Director Jamshed Ahmed said that they have no preparation for filing regular cases with the Environment Court to apply the rules during the ongoing drive, as they have lack of manpower and logistic support. An inspector of the Department of Environment said they received a good number of complaints every month, but cannot conduct a thorough inspection due to manpower shortage. In Dhaka division there are only three inspectors working, he added.

• The Environment Court is empowered to convert the fines imposed by it as compensation to be paid to persons affected as a result of the commission of an offence under the law. But the lower Court is reluctant to exercises this jurisdiction. Even the victims cannot file a suit in the courts below without obtaining the sanction from the DoE. IUCN Country Representative Dr Ainun Nishat said that an aggrieved individual should have direct access to the court, but the obligation to go through the director general of environment department has made the court useless.
• The Environment Court Act 2000, enacted to try cases related to offences under the Environment Conservation Act 1995 and Environment Conservation Rules 1997, has hardly any impact, said Prof KB Sajjadur Rasheed of Dhaka University while making a keynote presentation.

• Although the law empowers the courts to order the polluters to compensate the affected people, no such order of compensation has so far been issued by any of the environment court, according to the information available with the department.

• According to information available with the Department of Environment, since the establishment of the courts, 340 cases were filed till May 31 – 166 in Dhaka, 87 in Chittagong and 87 in Sylhet. Of the 304 cases, 63 have been disposed of, 60 are under trial and 185 cases are now under investigation, while proceedings in three cases have been stayed by the High Court. In the rest 29 cases, the department has filed final reports saying that no evidence could be found to prove the charges. Only 38 cases ended in conviction of the polluters. In 19 cases, the accused factories and individuals were acquitted of the charges. The department, however, is yet to know about the judgement in the rest six cases disposed of.The convicts were fined and ordered to set up effluent treatment plants in their factories.

• The sources Environment court of Chittahong said a total of 144 cases, including 49 for violation of building code, remains pending with the court but not a single case was settled in the last two years.Only 30 cases have so far been disposed of since the inception of the environment court in 2002, the sources said adding that 17 cases were filed till July 2009 while 42 cases filed in 2008 and 59 cases in 2007.

• Jamshed Ahmed, DoE director for Dhaka division, said that Technical and manpower capacity of the DoE is too inadequate to cope with the volume of work assigned to it. He added Dhaka division has so far filed only 167 cases with the Environment Court.

• Only 38 cases out of a total 340 filed till May 31 have so far been ended in conviction since the establishment of Environmental Courts in 2002. Only 340 cases were filed with the environment courts till May 31, 2009 which reflects the reluctance of the affected people to seek justice due to legal limitations and lengthy and tortuous procedures.

Legal loopholes and deficiencies of the Environment Court Act, 2000
It is true that the ultimate objective of the establishment of Environment Court is to ensure speedy trial of the environmental cases, but the existing hassles and botheration relating initiating of any grievance or claim for compensation surely can vitiate its main purposes. Here are some imperfections of the Environment Court Act, 2000 as well as Environment Court as follows:
1. Lengthy and Tortuous Procedure:
The interesting matter is that though the Court has been established to deal with the offence relating to Environment but suits in this Court could be introduced solely by the DoE unless an aggrieved person succeeds in satisfying the Court that the DoE has not duly acted upon his complaint within 60 days from lodging it. Legal loopholes have virtually made the Country’s Environment Court ineffective and useless as an individual cannot directly seek for redress in the event of environmental damage.

2. Lack enforcement of Court’s Order:
Indeed in a contempt case relating to environmental litigation, the High Court Division imposed a fine of tk. 6 lack for non-compliance of its order. But the money is never realized. If the higher judiciary fails so what would be the

initiative of the lower judiciary? Even the victim cannot file a suit in the Environment Court without obtaining the sanction from the DoE.

3. No insertion of Polluter Pay Principle(PPP):
PPP means that absolute liability of harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victim of the pollution but also to the cost of restoring environmental degradation.

4. Reluctant to convert fine as compensation:
Practically the Environment Court is reluctant to convert fine into compensation. As a result aggrieved person is always deprived of any compensation for damage done to him.

5. Obstacle to direct access to justice:
An aggrieved individual should have direct access to the Court but the obligation to go through the Director General of DoE has made the Court useless.

6. Lack of Institutional Framework:
 Institutional apathy and lack of professionalism like EC and complex procedure of accessing in the justice are responsible for environmental degradation.
 The Environment Court Act, 2000 enacted to try cases related to offence under the Environment Conservation Act,1995 and the Environment Conservation Rules, 1997 has hardly any impact with the reality.
 Appointment of persons who are not expert and unqualified in the Environment Court.

7. No exact time limitation for disposing case:
There is no time limitation for disposing cases under the Environment Court Act, 2000.

8. Lack of manpower and logistic support:
There is no provision to form environmental police, lack of staffs of DoE, inadequate Environment Courts and insufficient knowledge of the stakeholders about how to ensure environmental sustainability. So it is responsible for making the Environment Court ineffective.

9. Exclusive Safeguard of the officials of DoE :
Filing even a reasonable complaint could not lead to any civil or criminal liability for the DoE if it acts in good faith. Though the term good faith has become critical one in the Act, there is no provision in the Act to interpret the term good faith and for this ambiguity the officials of the DoE always enjoy the benefit of escaping the liability of the offence, if any, and depriving common people to get remedy.

10. No option left to challenge the order of Appellate authority:
In addition, the appellate authority as comprised of offers of the DoE or MoEF and the decision of the appellate authority is final and there is no option to challenge that decision in any Court.

11. Remarkable and Crucial Lacunas of the Environment Court Act:
After all, the following lacunas of the Environment Court Act, 2000 is very remarkable and crucial:
a. Absence of appropriate documentation system.
b. Abuse of power and insincerity and negligence of DoE on its authorized officer.
c. Absence of scope for inclusion of any environment expert in the Court.
d. Lack of proper and regular monitoring of the inspection activities.
e. Uncertainties and ambiguities in the provisions in expressing powers and functions, authorities and jurisdictions whether administrative or judicial.
f. Huge expenditure and delay as associated with Court proceeding.
g. Lack of awareness about environmental rights and duties among the common people.
h. Lack of commitment among the politicians with the regards to environment protection and keeping the common people far away from the court premises even being the victim of environment degradation.

12. Lack of accountability of DoE :
Lack of accountability of DoE could seriously undermine the objectives of establishing the Environment Court which lead to abuse of power and corruption in its activities.

13. Lack of Public awareness:
There is serious lack of widely campaigning and public participation and awareness.

14. Wicked political culture
Wicked political culture has not been changed yet. Politicians intentionally make long procedure to file suit.

15. long and complex procedure of filing suit
Most of the times The High court Division cancels the judgments of sub ordinate Court which diminishes the sufficiency of court. The practical scenario is that normally no case is filed in the Environment Court as people are reluctant to file a suit because of hawing long and complex procedure of filing suit.

16. Additional duty of the Judges It is burdensome for the Judges to deal with environment related cases in addition to their ordinary duty.

17. No clear demarcation regarding nature of The Court:
The nature of the Environment Court is both civil and criminal. It is paradoxical and problematic.

18. Complicated procedure:
Though the procedures of CrPC and CPC are applicable under this Act, again it has its own procedure. So it is complicated.

19. Standing laws with ambiguity: Section 2 of Environment Court Act, 2000 provides that the definition of environmental law that Environmental Law means this Act (EC ACT), the Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995, any other law specified by the Government in the official gazette for the purpose of this Act and the rules made under these laws.
But the Government is yet to make any notification to clarify the demarcation of environmental law. This is the gross defect to make Environment Court inefficient and ineffective.

Concluding remarks:
Mere adapting law is not enough to protect our environment except a convenient and straight system to reach the court for the purpose of seeking remedy against the offence is ensured to the common people.
At the long run, it appears to us that the above mentioned defects and imperfections of the Environment Court Act, 2000 make the Environment Court inactive and ineffective and keep the mass people far away from justice.

Environment related court in other countries of Indian subcontinent: A comparative study

India
In India there is an Environment Tribunal named the National Environment Tribunal which has been established under the National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995.
1. Composition of Tribunal and Benches:
The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and such number of Vice-Chairpersons, Judicial Members and Technical Members as the Central Government may deem fit. A Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member. A Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.

2. Qualifications for appointment as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other Member
According to section 10 of the Indian National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995-
(1)A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairperson unless he.-
(a) is, or has been, a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court; or
(b) has, for at last two year", held the office of Vice-Chairperson.
(2) A person shell not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairperson unless he-
(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) has, for at least two years, held the post of a Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less then that of a Secretary to the Government of India; or
(c) (i) has, for at least five years, held the post of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post under the Central or a State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India; and
(ii) has adequate, knowledge of, or experience in, legal, administrative, scientific or technical aspects of the problems relating to environment; or
(d) has for at least three years, held office as a Judicial Member or a Technical Member,
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member unless he--
(a) is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court; or
(b) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in grade I of that Service for at least three years.
(4) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member unless he has adequate knowledge of, or experience in, or capacity to deal with, administrative, scientific or technical aspects of the problems relating to environment.
3. Term of office
The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Member shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office, but shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years:
Provided that no Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other Member shall hold office as such after he has attained-
(a) in the case of the Chairperson, the age of seventy years;
(b) in the case of the Vice-Chairperson, the age of sixty-five years; and
(c) in the case of any other Member, the age of sixty-two years.

4. Power of Chairperson to transfer cases from one Bench to another
On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties, and after hearing such of them as he may desire to be heard, or on his own motion without such notice, the Chairperson may transfer any case pending before one Bench, for disposal, to any other Bench.

5. Decision to be taken by majority
If the Members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be (decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the Members are equally divided they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the Chairperson who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other Members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members who have heard the case including those who first heard it.

6. Deposit of amount payable for damage to environment Where any amount of compensation is ordered to he paid under any award by the Tribunal on the ground of any damage to environment, that amount shall be remitted to the authority specified under the Indian Public Liability insurance Act, 1991 for being credited to the Environmental Relief Fund. The amount of compensation credited to the Environmental Relief Fund may be utilised by such person or authority, in such manner and for such purposes of environment as may be prescribed.
7. Appeals
An appeal shall lie against any award or other order, not being an interlocutory order, of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court on one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure. No appeal shall lie against an award or other order made by the Tribunal with the consent of the parties.
Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless he has deposited with it the amount so awarded in the manner directed by the Supreme Court.

8. Time limit to appeal
Every appeal shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the award or other order appealed against:
Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
9. Provision to make certain persons liable to pay compensation in certain cases Where death of, or injury to, any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property or environment has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to pay compensation for such death, injury or damage. In any claim for compensation, the claimant shall not be required to plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of any person.
10. Penalty for failure to comply with orders of Tribunal
Whoever fails to comply with any order made by the Tribunal, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees, or with both.
11. Protection of action taken in good faith
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or against the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other Member of the Tribunal or any other person authorised by the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other Member for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or order made there under.
12. Overriding effect
Save as provided in the Indian Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

13. Power to make rules The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.

Pakistan
In Pakistan there is an Environment Tribunal named the Environment Tribunal which has been established under the Environmental Protection Act 1997.

1. Composition of Tribunal
An Environmental Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson who is, or has been, or is qualified for appointment as, a Judge of the High Court to be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and two members to be appointed by the Federal Government of which at least one shall be a technical member with suitable professional qualifications and experience in the environmental field as may be prescribed. For every sitting of the Environmental Tribunal, the presence of the Chairperson and not less than one Member shall be necessary.

2. The terms and conditions of service
The terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson and members of the Environmental Tribunal shall be such as may be prescribed.
3. Decision to be taken by majority A decision of an Environmental Tribunal shall be expressed in terms of the opinion of the majority of its members, including the Chairperson, or if the case has been decided by the Chairperson and only one of the members and there is a difference of opinion between them, the decision of the Environmental Tribunal shall be expressed in terms of the opinion of the chairperson.
4. Power to take cognizance of an offence An Environmental Tribunal shall not take cognizance of any offence except on a complaint in writing by The Federal Agency or any Government Agency or local council; and Any aggrieved person, who has given notice of not less than thirty days to the Federal Agency or the Provincial Agency concerned of the alleged contravention and of his intention to make a complaint to the Environmental Tribunal.
5. Appeals to the Environmental Tribunal
(1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of the Federal Agency or any Provincial Agency under any provision of this Act and rules or regulations made there under may prefer an appeal with the Environmental Tribunal within thirty days of the date of communication of the impugned order or direction to such person.
(2) An appeal to the Environmental Tribunal shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.

6. Appeals from Orders of the Environmental Tribunal Any person aggrieved by any final order or by any sentence of the Environmental Tribunal passed under this Act may prefer an appeal to the High Court.
7. Time limit to appeal
The appeal shall be lie by the person aggrieved by any final order or by any sentence of the Environmental Tribunal passed under this Act within thirty days of communication of such order or sentence.

8. Appeals from Orders of Environmental Magistrates
Any person convicted of any contravention of this Act or the rules or regulations by an Environmental Magistrate may, within thirty days from the date of his conviction, appeal to the Court of Sessions, whose decision thereon shall be final.
9. Order the offender to pay additional fine in case of monetary benefit
Environmental Tribunal is satisfied that as a result of the commission of the offence monetary benefits have accrued to the offender, the Environmental Tribunal may order the offender to pay, in addition to the fines, further additional fine commensurate with the amount of the monetary benefits.
10. Indemnity
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Federal or Provincial Governments, the Councils, the Federal Agency or Provincial Agencies, the Director-Generals of the Federal Agency and the Provincial Agency, members, officers, employees, experts, advisors, committees or consultants of the Federal or Provincial Agencies or the Environmental Tribunal or Environmental Magistrates or any other person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the rules or regulations made there under.
11. Act to Override Other Laws
The provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.
12. Power to Make Rules
The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act including rules for implementing the provisions of the international environmental agreements, specified in the Schedule to this Act.

Comparative study:

Issue Bangladesh India Pakistan
1. Judicial body dealing the function of court Environment Court National Environment Tribunal Environmental Tribunal
2. Act dealing with the environmental justice The Environment Court Act, 2000 The National Environment Tribunal Act, 1995 The Pakistan Environmental Protection Act , 1997
3. Composition of the body Composed of single judge. Composed of one Chairman and such number of other members as the Government specifies Composed of one judge and two other members
4. Designation of the judge Joint District Judge Judge of High Court or Supreme Court Judge of High Court
5. Appeal Appeal lies to the court of the District judge Appeal lies to the Supreme Court Appeal lies to the High Court
6. Involvement of expert No expert is involved in the process of court Consists one expert in the bench One expert is appointed in the tribunal
7. Consultation with the expert in appointment of Judges No provision of consultation Consultation with the Chief Justice in appointing the Judge and with experts in appointing the expert member Consultation with the Chief Justice
8. Approval in filing Suit

Prior approval of the Director General of Department of Environment is required No approval is required No approval is required
9. Direct access to Court No direct access to Court by the aggrieved party The aggrieved party has direct access to justice The aggrieved party has direct access to justice
10. Provision for appointment of Magistrate in certain cases In certain cases Special Magistrate can impose penalty No such provision of appointment of Magistrate In certain cases Magistrate can impose penalty
11. Inspection prior judicial process judicial process precedes a lengthy investigation and inspection No such investigation is made No such investigation is made

Recommendations:
1. Efficiency of the court need to be enhanced. For this decisional time should be reduced.
2. Costs of the Environmental Court should be reduced.
3. Experts should be involved with the judicial process to ensure justice.
4. The Court shall compose of more than Judge with at least one expert in each bench.
5. Judges having special knowledge, training and experience in the field of environment should be appointed.
6. Different provisions of Environment Court Act, 2000 should be made consistent and uniform.
7. Direct access to justice for common people should be ensured. For this purpose, power of Department of Environment should be curtailed.
8. Investigation process should be made simple and power of Investigating Officer should be curtailed to reduce corruption.
9. Case filing and processing system should be improved.
10. More flexible ways should be adopted to discharge the environmental cases promptly. For this purpose Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) could be included in the statute.
11. More Environment Court with clear cut jurisdiction should be established for easiness in case filing and reducing pressure.
12. Specialized and expert prosecutors should be appointed by the government so that cases could be handled efficiently and successfully.

Conclusion
Establishing separate Environment Court shows Government’s concern to protect environment, promote environmental issues, and ensure environmental justice. It is also a display of Government’s policy to implement different international principles in the domestic level. But so far the current Act has failed to serve this purpose. Different flaws with the Act and some practical problems have frustrated the desired justice in the field of environment. It is expected that the Government should pay more heeds in this sector and amend the Act to make it an effective one. Environmental issues are getting momentum both in domestic and international level. Protection and improvement of environment is now addressed with the right to life of people which is one of the most crucial human rights. Our neighbor countries so far have done fairly good work in this field. Our Government can use their experience to make our Act an effective one. Until and unless the Court is not made effective and efficient, all the efforts by Government, different NGOs and civil rights group in this sector will go in vain and people of the country will be deprived of their one of the fundamental rights which will result in serious injustice for the common people of the country.