KARACHI: Court seeks comments on seizure of tankers
By Our Staff Reporter
KARACHI, July 29: The Sindh High Court asked a provincial government attorney on Thursday to file written comments on a writ petition questioning seizure of water tankers and other vehicles for security cordons.
Additional Advocate-General Ahmed Pirzada submitted before a division bench, comprising Justices Khilji Arif Hussain and Gulzar Ahmed, that the owners of the tankers used for cordoning off trouble spots were paid compensation. He cited a 1994 high court judgment saying that private vehicles might be used for public purposes if due compensation was paid.
The bench observed that owners could not be deprived of their property against their will. Private vehicles could be forcibly taken over only in extreme emergencies and on payment of compensation to the owners. It asked the AAG to submit written comments on behalf of the home secretary and fixed Aug 3 for further hearing of the petition.
Advocate Shaukat Ali Shaikh, counsel for the petitioner, said the seizure of the tankers deprived the owners and their employees of the day's earnings. They had to default on their commitment to their customers.
A number of town police officers, who appeared in response to the court notice, told the bench that the tankers were requisitioned only in emergencies to prevent violence and compensation was paid to their owners on their release.
OIL TANKERS: The bench, meanwhile, issued notices to the Pakistan Coast Guards and a federal attorney in a petition alleging illegal seizure of two oil tankers by the guards.
The petitioner submitted that he dealt in used oil business and purchased used engine oil from several outlets. The oil was then supplied to reclamation plants for reuse. He said two of his tankers carrying 12000 litres of used oil were hauled up by the guards unlawfully, alleging that they were transporting diesel smuggled from Iran.
He had got a clearance from the Hydro Carbon Development Institute for his consignment, the petitioner claimed. The seizure was entirely illegal, he said, and requested the court to order his tankers' release and restrain the coast guards from interfering in his lawful business.
The bench issued notices to the coast guards and a deputy attorney-general in the petition for August 2.
PHONE TOWER: The bench adjourned further hearing of a petition challenging installation of a telephone tower in a DHA area. Three residents moved the court complaining that the tower was being erected by Ufone without seeking permission from the Defence Housing Authority and in violation of the building laws and rules. The projected tower posed a threat to the lives and properties of the residents of Third Lane, Phase II, DHA.
Since no permission had been sought for the tower, the mobile phone company had taken no precautionary measures before the installation, according to the petitioners. They also impleaded the PTCL and its officials as respondents. The DHA counsel sought time for filing his comments on the petition and the bench adjourned the hearing to Aug 5.
PLEA DISMISSED: Justice Khilji Arif Hussain of the Sindh High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition seeking recovery of a girl and asked the petitioner to approach the concerned court.
Taj Mohammad moved the court for recovery of her daughter Ms Gul Bibi who was allegedly kidnapped by Zulfiqar, Abdul Wakeel, Ms Rukhsana and Sardar on July 29, 2003, from Sharafi Goth. The case against the accused is pending in trial court.
Dismissing the petition after hearing the petitioner's counsel, the court observed that the FIR was registered against the accused and matter is under adjudication before court having jurisdiction.
In case, the court said, police failed to recover the detenue, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the concerned court and seek direction as it is now settled that constitutional remedy can be available only in case if alternative remedy not available.
The petitioner has to approach first to the concerned court for seeking redress of his grievance and if aggrieved by any order, passed by the court, then take further action in according with the law. The petition has no merit and dismissed, court order said.
