HYDERABAD: The Sindh High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the deputy attorney-general asking him to seek reply from government and inform to the question that why Thar was deprived of benefits of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project when the Thar coal power plant was part of it.

The SHC Hyderabad circuit bench comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui also directed the Sindh additional advocate-general (AAG) to submit in court the Thar Commission’s report.

The bench called for placing the matter before the SHC chief justice for passing an appropriate order as the composition of the bench, which had partly heard it, was being changed. The bench adjourned the matter to October 24.

The counsel for the Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECMC), Advocate Mayhar Kazi, concluded his arguments regarding objections raised by petitioners — Mr Lakho and some other residents of Gorano village — on the contents of a report submitted by a four-member inquiry committee appointed by court. Advocate Kazi insisted that the quality of water being released into the effluent reservoir at Gorano village was better than that of groundwater wells in Thar. He said that every individual living in the Thar coal project’s Block-II in Islamkot as well as Gorano, would be better off in terms of access to drinking water, health, job opportunities and vocational training as a result of the execution of the project.

He said Gorano reservoir water might not be in line with the parameters of WHO, still it was much better than what was available to Tharis from the groundwater wells. He defended the committee’s report, saying that it met the terms of reference spelled out by court.

He dismissed the petitioners’ claim that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project was not examined by the committee.

Both judges put several queries to the SECMC counsel to know that how many general scholarships were offered and why a university or an IBA campus could not be built in Tharparkar by the company. Justice Panhwar insisted why a fixed number of general scholarships could not be offered the way the Oil and Gas Development Corporation (OGDC) did in Balochistan.

The counsel submitted that he would require instruments to make a statement.

Justice Panhwar said that many secondary and higher secondary schools existed in the districts. But the question was of a university which must be there in every district. He didn’t appreciate Advocate Kazi’s proposal of taking over all 47 basic health units (BHUs) in Thar, and asked: “Why are you rescuing Sindh government. These facilities are already with a non-governmental organisation, People’s Primary Healthcare Initiative (PPHI), so you are not required to make offer. You can talk about sponsoring Mithi’s district headquarter hospital”.

The bench asked him if his client could collaborate with the Indus Hospital management that had taken over Badin’s district hospital; private medical stores had been shut there. “Mithi district hospital is already getting Rs130 million,” said Justice Panhwar, adding that likewise, Sukkur IBA campus could be set up in Tharparkar and insofar as a hospital was concerned, it must have doctors of all specialities.

Justice Siddiqui observed that not a single anti-snake venom (ASV) centre existed in Sindh. The counsel said that such a centre was set up in Daharki by the Engro Fertilizer but he would seek instruction for replicating it in Thar.

Advocate Saman Rafat Imtiaz, the counsel for the Sindh Coal Authority (SCA), pleaded that the effluent disposal scheme (EDS) was ancillary project of power plant. She said that this project was part of CPEC, prompting Justice Panhwar to ask that “if it’s part of CPEC then why the area of Thar is deprived of motorway”. She replied that the SCA was concerned with objections over EDS and to deal with coal mining for which lease was given. Advocate Kazi rescued her, saying that it was western and eastern corridors where roads were built to link them with Chinese market. “Tharparkar doesn’t fall in any corridor.

“SECMC is executing EDS on SCA’s behalf under Feb 20, 2012 implementation agreement,” Advocate Saman said, adding that the petitioners were in no way aggrieved.

Justice Panhwar observed: “We can ask federation as to how three or four districts could be given benefit of CPEC by way of motorway-type roads”.

Published in Dawn, September 28th, 2017