PESHAWAR: The residents of University Town have demanded of Chief Minister Pervez Khattak to remove commercial entities from the residential area by implanting the judgment of Peshawar High Court in true sense.

The residents of University Town including Kamal Jahangir, Maimoona Noor, Beena Khushnod, Haroon Zafar and Omar Akram in a joint statement here on Thursday asked the district administration to expedite campaign against commercialisation of residential area.

They said that Peshawar Development Authority (PDA) had promised to stop commercial activities in another residential area, Hayatabad, but the district administration seemed to be least interested in stopping the same in University Town for unknown reasons.

They said that Peshawar High Court in a judgment in March, 2014, had banned all types of commercial activities in University Town and ordered shifting of all commercial entities from the locality on immediate basis.

The residents said that district administration was not abiding by the orders of PHC and a contempt of court case was already under trail against it. They said that only nazim of Town-III Arbab Mohammad Ali was serious in stopping commercial activities in the area. The rest in the district administration were least bothered about it, they alleged.

The residents said that the presence of 500 schools with more than 35,000 students was one of the biggest issues for them.

They said that besides schools, private hospitals, clinics, restaurants and beauty parlours were also functional in the area.

They said that hospitals and clinics were throwing their waste in streets, posing a health risk to the residents, as none of those facilities had any kind of incinerator.

The residents said that presence of dozens of guest houses posed a potential security threat to them.

They also demanded relocating of the offices of various non-governmental organisations from the area. They appealed to chief minister to remove commercial entities from the residential locality.

Published in Dawn, August 26th, 2016

Opinion

Merging for what?

Merging for what?

The concern is that if the government is thinking of cutting costs through the merger, we might even lose the functionality levels we currently have.

Editorial

Dubai properties
Updated 16 May, 2024

Dubai properties

It is hoped that any investigation that is conducted will be fair and that no wrongdoing will be excused.
In good faith
16 May, 2024

In good faith

THE ‘P’ in PTI might as well stand for perplexing. After a constant yo-yoing around holding talks, the PTI has...
CTDs’ shortcomings
16 May, 2024

CTDs’ shortcomings

WHILE threats from terrorist groups need to be countered on the battlefield through military means, long-term ...
Reserved seats
Updated 15 May, 2024

Reserved seats

The ECP's decisions and actions clearly need to be reviewed in light of the country’s laws.
Secretive state
15 May, 2024

Secretive state

THERE is a fresh push by the state to stamp out all criticism by using the alibi of protecting national interests....
Plague of rape
15 May, 2024

Plague of rape

FLAWED narratives about women — from being weak and vulnerable to provocative and culpable — have led to...