0
KARACHI, Sept 20: The Sindh High Court asked the traffic police on Thursday to impound all smoke-emitting vehicles in the city for different periods depending on the number of times the offence is committed.
The order was passed on a petition filed by Advocate Islam Hussain against air and noise pollution, traffic congestion and overcharging by taxi cabs and rickshaws without meters or with tampered meters. He said the crux of the traffic problem was non-implementation of laws, rules and court orders.
The Supreme Court had ordered in a suo motu case as far back as 2003 that all big and small vehicles causing noise and air pollution should be eliminated but no action has apparently been taken to ensure compliance.
The SHC, he submitted, gave the authorities three months in April 2006 to take all two-stroke rickshaws off the roads. Recently, the SC barred daytime entry of big vehicles in another suo motu order but the order remained effective only for a couple of days. The city government itself announced removal of two-stroke rickshaws from the main Saddar roads but they were plying with impunity.
Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan informed the division bench hearing the petition that two-stroke rickshaws were being barred in phases and a summary for their complete elimination till June 2010 had been approved by the chief minister.
The bench, which consists of Justices Mohammad Athar Saeed and Arshad Siraj, asked the AG to furnish a copy of the summary to the petitioner, who said three years was too long a period for the eradication of a health hazard. The SHC had prescribed a three-month period, Advocate Hussain said, recalling that the Indian supreme court had the smoke-emitting vehicles removed within 15 days.
Advocate Ilyas Khan, counsel for the bus and rickshaw owners, said the livelihood of hundreds of thousands people was involved and no decision should be taken in haste.
Replying to a court question, Deputy Inspector-General (traffic) Wajid Khan Durrani said 3,000 vehicles had been challaned in 15 days. However, the vehicles had returned on to the roads after payment of fines by their owners or drivers. The traffic police had no authority under the law to impound polluting vehicles.
EPA’s authority
The bench was told that polluting vehicles could be impounded by the environmental protection agency under the Environmental Protection Act.
The bench directed the traffic police to impound offending vehicles under the EPA and hand them over to the agency established under it.
The polluting vehicles, big or small, would initially be impounded for three days. But if they are brought back onto the roads in the same condition again, they would be impounded for seven days. A third offence would attract seizure for 15 days and permanent confiscation with the cancellation of route permit or licence if they continue the violation and commit the offence for the fourth time.
The traffic DIG was asked to take stringent action against the sergeants letting off offending vehicles and drivers after accepting bribes or extorting money from innocent motorists. Vehicles should be intercepted for violations but not for extortion and a report should be submitted on the action taken by the police in compliance of the court order by Oct17, when the matter would again come up for hearing.
Presidential remission
Another division bench comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Faisal Arab asked Additional Advocate-General Qazi Khalid Ali to produce the record of the remissions granted by the president to prisoners.
The issue of remissions arose in the proceedings on a petitioner’s plea that he would be out of prison if allowed the benefit of presidential remissions.
The AAG said the petitioner was sentenced by a special anti-narcotics court for 14 years for trying to smuggle out five kilograms of heroin. Due to his failure to pay the fine imposed on him, the jail term rose to 15 years. Prisoners convicted of heinous offences were not entitled to presidential remission. Besides, a convict must have served at least two-thirds of his sentence in order to be eligible for presidential remissions. Even after getting remissions under Section 382 (B) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner convict had not served two-thirds of the 15-year term.
The bench asked for the production of the remissions record in order to ascertain their applicability to the petitioner.
