KARACHI, Nov 29: A division bench of the Sindh High Court on Thursday ordered stringent action against a negligent deputy controller of buildings who allowed construction of a violative building at Lyari and issued a non-bailable warrant to enforce the presence of the offending builder.
A petition was moved by a non-governmental organization, Karachi Helpline, alleging that unauthorized construction was being raised on plot number 3/36, Lea Market Lyari Town, in violation of the approved plan. The high court issued notices to the builder and the Karachi Building Control Authority and restrained the former from raising further construction.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, Abdul Jabbar Korai, the builder went ahead with the construction work despite the stay order. The court ordered sealing and attachment when the matter was brought to its notice. The construction continued even during attachment and the builder not only completed the structure but also transferred it to the purchaser-allottees in gross violation of the court order and in the absence of completion, possession and no-objection certificates. The builder failed to appear on successive dates and the KBCA took no action against him to ensure compliance with the court order.
The bench, which consisted of Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Rana M. Shamim, asked the chief controller of buildings to appear on Dec 6 to explain the position personally. Meanwhile, strict action against the DCB concerned, who was responsible for inspection and compliance with the court order, should be taken under the relevant punitive law and rules. A non-bailable warrant was issued for the arrest of builder Suleiman. The warrant would be executed by the town police officer, who would produce the respondent on Dec 6. Advocate Iqbal Memon, who represented the KBCA, was told to convey the order to all concerned.
NGO fined
Another division bench comprising Justices Yasmin Abbasey and Mahmood Alam Rizvi awarded costs against a non-governmental organization, Guidline, for filing a frivolous petition. The petition alleged that an eight-storeyed building has been constructed on a plot in Gulberg without any sanction and otherwise in gross violation of the building rules. The KBCA submitted a report in response to a court notice saying that not only the building plan was duly sanctioned but also the building was raised in conformity with the plan. KBCA counsel Shahid Jamil Khan requested the bench to award costs amounting to Rs50,000 against the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition containing totally unfounded allegations. The bench reduced the amount to Rs 25,000 but warned the petitioner NGO against filing baseless petitions in the future.
TV channel ban
The Sindh High Court adjourned on Thursday the hearing of a petition against the suspension of Geo channels’ transmissions to Dec 4 to ascertain whether a direct petition moved before the Supreme Court agitates identical or related matters.
As the petition filed by M/s Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Limited came up before a division bench, Deputy Attorney-General Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui referred to a press report and submitted that the matter had become sub judice before the Supreme Court and propriety required that the proceedings in the high court be stayed.
The petitioner’s counsel, Mohammad Ali Mazhar, produced an uncertified copy of the petition pending before the Supreme Court and maintained that there was no similarity between the two petitions. He said the petition before the SC had been filed in public interest under Article 184(3) of the Constitution while the petitioner before the high court was an aggrieved party under Article 199. The former challenges the validity of the Pakistan Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Ordinance without naming channels while the latter questions the suspension of Geo channels transmissions without assailing any provision of the law but invoking the fundamental rights ensured by the Constitution. Had the respondent ministry of broadcasting filed any comments, it would have become clear which provision of the law had been pressed into service.
DAG Rizwan Siddiqui submitted that the Pemra Ordinance was the only law in the field to regulate the operations of the electronic media, including television channels. Any petition questioning the vires of the ordinance must have an impact on the working of channels and it was not appropriate to claim that the two petitions raised entirely different matters. The outcome of the hearing before the Supreme Court must be awaited to avoid any confusion and multiplicity of proceedings.
Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Rana M. Shamim, who constituted the division bench seized of the Geo petition, asked the DAG to produce a certified copy of the petition pending before the SC and adjourned the hearing to Dec 4.
