|
|
|
| February 3, 2006 | Friday | Muharram 4, 1427 |
Punjab govt allows kite, string trade for a month: SC to review ordinance and notification
LAHORE, Feb 2: A five-member full bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing of the kite-flying case for next week and extended the ban till then. Earlier, the Punjab advocate-general informed the court that manufacturing of kites and strings would be allowed for a month from Feb 15 to March 15. He produced a notification to the effect.
“The suggestion of creating kite-flying zones is not feasible because this would lead to more accidents,” he said, and added that the sport should be confined to houses.
He said the district nazims would allow kite-flying and determine dates for the purpose.
Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, who appeared on behalf of kite manufacturers, contended that there was ambiguity in the kite-flying ordinance and rules had not been framed so far. “How can an act be declared legal for 15 days and illegal for the rest of the year. It should be wholly legal or illegal,” he said.
The court said it wanted to pass a balanced judgment as it did not want to render the manufacturers unemployed.
In response to a court query, the advocate-general stated that 20 places were considered to be specified for sport during high-level meetings, but the district nazims and police authorities were of the view that it could create problems for the people owing to rush. It was better to confine kite-flying to houses alone.
The court observed that the ordinance was not compatible with its orders and it would review it, besides the government notification during the next hearing.
CATTLE MARKET: The LHC adjourned the hearing of two separate contempt petitions against Allama Iqbal Town nazim and administration due to non-availability of respondents.
The contempt petition against holding of cattle market in the residential area of Sabzazar Scheme was filed by Sabzazar Welfare Society president Saeed Aasi.
Barrister Kamran Sheikh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the LHC had earlier restrained the respondent from holding cattle market in the residential area but the respondent did not bother to comply with the order.—APP
|
|
|
|
