ISLAMABAD, Dec 23: A Karachi-based social worker on Friday petitioned the Supreme Court ‘to provide guidelines’ on construction of the controversial Kalabagh dam.

Chairman Awami Himmayat Tehrik Pakistan Maulvi Iqbal Haider has pleaded that the provincial assemblies, which passed resolutions against the dam, and leaders of opposition in these assemblies were bound under Article 155 of the constitution to incorporate their reservations and objections in a written complaint to be filed before the Council of Common Interest (CCI).

Mr Haider has cited the federal government, and the governments of the Punjab, Sindh, the NWFP and Balochistan as well as leaders of the opposition in the four provincial assemblies as respondents in the petition.

The petitioner contended that under Article 184(1) 184(2) and 184(3) of the constitution the apex court was empowered to decide disputes between two or more governments, i.e. provincial or federal.

He also suggested that the federal government was competent to request the Chief Justice of Pakistan to appoint an arbitrator to settle disputes between provinces.

The resolutions adopted by the provincial assemblies against the dam were only meant to extend their political agenda instead of strengthening national cohesion. This, the petitioner argued, was evident from the fact that none of these assemblies bothered to file a complaint before the CCI under Article 155 (complaints as to interference with water supplies).

Iqbal Haider alleged that different political, religious and ethnic groups were exploiting the dam issue ever since the federal government had decided to build new reservoir to meet future water needs.

The respondents, the petitioner pleaded, were deliberately misleading innocent and peaceful people by creating controversy over construction of dam promote hatred among the four provinces. They had also given strike calls and held demonstrations to create law and order situation in their respective provinces. They, in fact were trying to divide the nation, he alleged.

He pleaded that the apex court had wide jurisdiction to interpret different articles of the constitution involved in the controversy.