KARACHI, June 13: The notification concerning levy of fee on parking vehicles outside Uzma Arcade, Sasi Arcade and Marine Point situated at Block-7, main Clifton Road, has been challenged in the Sindh High Court by representatives of the owners of the offices/shops and flats of the buildings.
A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Musheer Alam, has put the respondents on notice for June 17. The Sindh government, city district government, Karachi, Nazim Saddar Town and district officer, charged parking, have been made respondents in the petition filed by the Uzma Arcade Owner’s Association.
It is the case of the petitioners that they and other common daily visitors use the car parking in front of the buildings known as Uzma Arcade/Sasi Arcade and Marine Point. The district officer (respondent No 4) vide notification No 627/DO(R)/02 dated May 30 (regarding charged parking) had taken away the vested and inherent rights of the petitioners.
The alleged illegal action caused bitterness and created apprehensions that in the prevailing atmosphere of law and order it would increase the incidents of car theft and robbery, they claimed.
The petitioners, represented by Jawaid Ahmed Siddiqui, maintained that the occupants were not aware of the identity of such persons who were allegedly puncturing tyres, harassing ladies and demanding fee on the strength of the so- called notification.
The petitioners approached the defendant No 4, the author of the notification, for the withdrawal of the notification which, according to them, was not only contrary to the law but also against the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 24 of the constitution.
It was the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order was bad in law and on facts of the case. The respondent No 4 had no jurisdiction to issue the notification and to levy cess or committing any act, which might cause financial burdens upon the citizen.
None of the provisions in the local Government Ordinance of 2001 empowered the respondent Nos 2 to 4 to issue such notification. The impugned notification was discriminatory in nature and against the constitution wherein it had been provided that “... no person shall be condemned, prosecuted or discriminated against.”
In this notification it was mentioned that : ... that only are government vehicles exempt from payment of parking fee...” which was highly objectionable and insult to the sensibility of law-abiding citizens and highly discriminatory in nature, the petitioners claimed.
According to them, in one day about government vehicles, with government/ local bodies number plates use the parking lot around the shopping area. Most of the time occupants of such vehicles are family members of the so-called officials or non-officials roaming around the vicinity/locality in government vehicles.
Moreover, the persons placed in the parking area are issuing slips wherein it is mentioned that “PARKING AT OWNERS RISK,” which implied that even after recovery of amount they are not responsible to keep an eye on the vehicles. On the contrary there are apprehensions that vehicles would be stolen.
They pointed out that government vehicles were being used and parked not only during office hours but also as late as 10pm. It was also submitted that in this area there was no government office at all, but most of the time government officials and their families came three for shopping in government vehicles.
The notification was therefore illegal. Furthermore, the manner in which people had been authorized to collect the amount, there was no check & balance on the money sought to be collected and it was clearly an act of nepotism/ favouritism, the petitioners alleged.
It was their claim that under section 116 read with 1st schedule of the Local Government Ordinance of 2001, the city district government was required to publish and invite public objections regarding any levy of cess/rent/tolls etc., but the respondents miserably failed to do so as no publication was made in any large circulating newspapers. Three was no knowledge about such a publication/inviting objections from the public.
Due to this notification, the office bearers/owners and residents had been seriously prejudiced as they had to bear extra cost. In the notification it was mentioned that a space could be reserved for a car at the rate of Rs2,000 a month, meaning thereby that free entrance, parking of the common man, particularly to the owners/residents/ occupants was denied, with practically due to this notification the respondent No 4 had all the intentions to let out the parking space to any body who bore the cost, to earn income without realizing how badly the common man would be affected.
