My December 2 column in this newspaper, 'Fire, Fire!', regarding the fire in Karim Centre and warning those who visit Karachi's shopping malls of the potential hazards and dangers that may crop up prompted an email response from a reader :

Subject - "you waist our money." Text - "you are a billionaire and you west our 14 rupees on every Sunday, why? you do write only for personnel satisfaction. please make some sense in theme and writings. don't criticise people on personnel biases. thanks Ikram." (sic.)

Having received many such messages from builders I am tempted to presume that Mr Ikram could be an irate builder. He may be interested to know that subsequent to my column there was yet another fire in the same Karim Centre which caused further damage to property.

However, my sympathies are with Mr Ikram as far as his 14 rupees are concerned. He could switch papers and go for one of our other English language paper which carry news that is well worth its 6 rupees selling price. For instance: Dateline Lahore, Dec 10 - "From our Correspondent: Punjab's oldest man, a heejra (eunuch) Guru Lal died at the age of 155 in Lalamusa. According to eunuch tradition, Guru Lal had celebrated his chehlum in his lifetime some five years ago and these celebrations had continued for a full two weeks. All participating heejras were given a golden ring each as a gift by the guru who hailed from an influential Chaudhry family of the area.... Guru's chailas rushed from every nook and corner of the province on hearing about his death and attended his funeral and burial at a local graveyard ..." Anybody who is anybody in our country is always 'rushing'.

From this point onwards, Mr Ikram and his 'likeminded' can stop reading and move on.

From the beginning of this year, Governor of Sindh Mohammadmian Soomro and his colleagues have been trying to pass an ordinance to regularise illegal buildings. A comprehensive note headed 'Regularisation of buildings which cannot be regularised as the law presently stands' was given to the director general of the Karachi Development Authority, another retired brigadier, Zaheer Kadri, and was discussed by the governing body of the KDA, the chief controller of buildings, also a retired brigadier, Zafar Malik, and the oversee committee of the Karachi Building Control Authority. Just before leaving on his annual Umra trip this Ramzan, the Governor relented, signed and promulgated the Sindh Building Control (Amendment) Ordinance 2001.

It is extremely difficult to draft a 'bad' law. Credit must be given to the members of the Sindh cabinet and the Governor for making a complete hash of things. They, the builders and their supporters are of the opinion that this Ordinance permits the regularization of buildings built in violation of the approved building plan and/or the provisions of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations 1979. This opinion is reinforced by the fact that a few of those who have raised illegal constructions are now approaching buyers, who have made bookings in their projects, to pay them money and have their buildings 'regularized'. Members of the KBCA Oversee Committee have also been approached to clarify the position prevailing after the promulgation of the Amendment.

Accordingly, with a view to safeguard the public interest and prevent anyone making financial gains under false pretexts, certain members of the Committee requested fellow law member Advocate of the Supreme Court Barrister Qazi Faez Isa to consider the matter and give a legal opinion. He did so, pointing out that any attempt on the part of the Government to regularise illegal buildings would be invalid because it would be based on a confusion of the concept of criminal liability with that of civil liability, and that too, despite the very clear pronouncements by the Superior Courts of Pakistan to the contrary. His opinion concludes: "It is therefore patently clear that the Amendment does not permit the 'regularization' of any building." Faez's opinion was shown to Senior Supreme Court advocates, Barrister Khalid Anwer and Barrister Naimur Rahman who also are in agreement.

The following resolution was tabled at the last meeting of the Oversee Committee of the KBCA on December 12 and was approved by: Engineer Kalimuddin, Engineer Nooruddin, Architect Thariani, Engineer de Souza, Barrister Isa, and me. The sponsor supporters of the Ordinance, the government men Brigadier Qadri, Brigadier Malik, and Builder Butt, naturally dissenting.

"The Oversee Committee constituted under Section 4-B of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance to oversee the functioning of the Authority clarifies that the recently promulgated SBCO (Amendment) 2001 does not permit the regularization of any building or construction raised in violation of the approved building plans and/or the provisions of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations 1979. Further, this stand is borne out by the decision of the Honourable Sindh High Court in the case of Feroza Hajiani vs. Abdul Razzak (1992 MLD 527) which was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Razzak vs. KBCA (PLD 1994 SC 512) and reaffirmed by a Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ardeshir Cowasjee vs. KBCA (PLJ 1999 SC 2331)."

An excerpt from Faez's opinion: "The Ordinance stipulates that those raising illegal constructions commit a crime. Upon being convicted they can be imprisoned and/or fined. The mere fact that the convict has served out his sentence and or paid the fine would not convert the illegal construction into a legal one. Such a suggestion would not only be wholly illegal but also completely absurd. It would be like a person who was convicted for stealing a car contending that since he has served out his imprisonment and or paid the fine imposed on him he now gets to keep the stolen car.

"Despite clear legal provisions, futile attempts have been made to equate compounding of offences with 'regularizing' illegal construction. In the case of Feroza Hajiani vs. Abdul Razzak (1992 MLD 527) just such a view was canvassed which the honourable High Court recorded as under:

"'Karachi Building Control Authority contended that the authority is competent under Section 19(1-A) of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979 to compound offences under the Ordinance and regularise construction of building made in violation of the building regulations. He referred to regulations 16 and 20 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations 1979 as such Regulations, according to him, spell out power to regularise constructions made in contravention of the Building Regulations.'

"The aforesaid contention was strongly rebutted by the High Court, holding that:

"'This power conferred on the authority or its authorised person by the provision of subsection 1-A of Section 19 of the Ordinance and Regulation 16(1) of the Regulations is analogous to the right to compound offences and the power to permit compounding of an offence contained in section 345, Cr.PC. Compounding of an offence it its ordinary sense means that a person against whom an offence has been committed agrees with the accused that he will not prosecute him on the condition of the latter making reparation. It is simply a composition reached on the basis of a compromise that the accused will not be prosecuted in a Court of law. This process merely absolves the accused or the offence from being prosecuted and saves him from the possible punishment on certain terms and conditions, but it cannot absolve him from the other consequences, as provided in the regulations, or contravention thereof. It cannot, therefore, be said that the power to compound an offence is synonymous with power to 'regularise' erection of a building in violation of the regulations or that compounding of an offence ipso facto amounts to such 'regularisation'.

"The High Court held that: "'Regulation 16(1) of the Regulations requires the authority to, inter alia, require any person who has carried out building work contrary to the provisions of the regulations to show cause why such building works or part thereof shall not be removed or altered to comply with the regulations and by regulation 16(2), paras (a) and (b), the Authority shall require such person, if he fails to show sufficient cause, to demolish the whole building or part thereof or to alter the works so as to bring it in conformity with the Regulations. It, therefore, follows that the Legislature intended that any building or a part thereof erected in contravention of the Regulation must be removed or altered to conform to the Regulations.

'... there is no power in the Authority and any of its officers to condone violation of the Regulations by regularising a building erected in contravention thereof. Authority and/or its officers can only compound the offence after a delinquent building has put the building in order in accordance with the Regulations.'

"The aforesaid judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court in Abdul Razzak vs. KBCA (PLD 1994 SC 512).... Subsequently, a Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Ardeshir Cowasjee vs. KBCA (PLJ 1999 SC 2331) specifically endorsed Abdul Razzak as laying down the correct legal position and overruled the case of Multiline Associates vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1995 SC 423) if it was construed to be in any manner inconsistent with the judgement in Abdul Razzak."

This bad ordinance does not affect the lives of the law-abiding people of Karachi which are protected by the Constitution, and, particularly by the fundamental rights enshrined therein.