KARACHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed reservations over the appointment of the 40-year-old director general of the Malir Development Authority and deputy commissioner of Malir district, appointed apparently in violation of the relevant rules, ruling that the matter needed to be addressed.

A three-member bench comprising Justices Amir Hani Muslim, Mushir Alam and Maqbool Baqar gave the ruling while hearing an application of a civil rights campaigner against the allotment of land to the Bahria Foundation and its illegal adjustment in the revenue record.

The MDA DG, an officer in BS-20 grade, had to cut a sorry figure in his replies when the court inquired about his credentials. Answering the court’s queries, he conceded that he was not appointed in BS-17 through competitive examination and that his initial appointment was as an administrative officer in the DMC Karachi East. He also conceded that he had not passed any management course.

“This issue needs to be addressed in the proceedings already pending in the cases bearing Cr. R. P. No. 15/2015 in Crl.

A. 436/2011, Crl. O.P. No. 6/2015 and others,” the bench said, directing its office to make separate files in regard to the issue of appointment of MDA DG and Malir DC and tag it with the aforesaid cases.

At the outset of the hearing the petitioner objected to the appointment of the DC of Malir, Razi Jan Muhammad, on the grounds that he was inducted from the federal information ministry and was continuing his services in the Sindh government in spite of the apex court judgement in the famous out-of-turn promotion and deputation cases.

Read: Sindh govt allotted 44,000 acres of land to Bahria Town: Rangers

When confronted by the court, the DC conceded that he was inducted into the provincial government’s PCS cadre from the federal information ministry.

During the proceedings, he admitted having signed the plan defining the boundaries of controlled area, adding that the master plan comprised 43 dehs.

He said he had merely forwarded the plan to the senior member, Board of Revenue (BoR). The DC of Malir further stated that all the layout plans were routed through him and the schemes of the layout plans, whether private or otherwise, were signed by him after verifying their titles.

The court directed him to place before it all the schemes whether public or private with their layout plans, which he had forwarded or verified since the day he assumed the office of DC of Malir before the next date of hearing.

When asked by the court that how the MDA had acquired the title of the land, MDA counsel Rasheed A. Rizvi said the land was owned by the provincial government and there was no notification by the BoR allowing the MDA to utilise the land. He, however, relied upon Sections 8 and 14 of the MDA Act, 1993, which was amended in 2013 for acquiring power of allotment.

The court disagreed with the MDA counsel’s contention and observed that the BoR had the authority to allot land with the approval of competent authority under the Colonisation Act and no other procedure was provided in law for allotment of land. “MDA is a developing agency and cannot usurp the powers of the Board of Revenue by resorting to Sections 8 and 14 of the MDA Act,” the court ruled.

The court directed the BoR senior member to be present on the next date of hearing with the required details.

It also ordered the chief secretary to file his reply on or before the next date of hearing, and adjourned the hearing to a next date.

Police budget case

The same bench once again expressed extreme displeasure over a report of the provincial police chief on its budgetary allocations and expenditures and directed him to submit comprehensive details in that regard.

The bench was hearing a miscellaneous application seeking release of funds allocated in the police budget for its investigation wing.

Inspector General of Police Ghulam Hyder Jamali appeared before the bench to submit his report on the matter, but the judges were irked when they went through the report and dismissed it as unsatisfactory.

The provincial finance secretary and home secretary filed their respective replies.

The bench observed that the earlier compliance report filed by IGP Ghulam Hyder Jamali did not disclose the date on which the funds were disbursed and even the present reply lacked the required details.

The bench recalled that it had asked the IGP to submit to the court the criteria by which he disbursed the funds under the heading ‘costs of investigation’ to the police officers. “He should collect the number of criminal cases being investigated in different districts of Sindh to the exclusion of Karachi and the amounts disbursed to them with dates. Before giving details, he will also provide the dates on which he has disbursed the amounts towards costs of investigation to the SSPs of different districts of the Sindh police, including Karachi. These details shall be provided date-wise.

“In the same manner the amounts, which were directly received by the SSPs under the heading of ‘costs of investigation’ from the finance department bypassing the IGP, should also be provided by the finance department. The IGP shall further provide the details of the amounts, which he has disbursed to the different investigation wings with dates on which these amounts were disbursed besides the details of the criminal cases under investigation before the different wings and the amounts which were disbursed to each IO against the case”, the bench added.

The court also directed the finance department to provide date-wise details of the amounts it had disbursed either under the directions of the IGP or otherwise to the police officers on the subject.

The bench adjourned the hearing to July 30 directing IGP Jamali and the finance and home secretaries to appear in court on the next hearing.

Published in Dawn, July 24th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play