SUKKUR: The Sindh High Court Sukkur bench has expressed grave dissatisfaction over the administrative handling of the Civil Hospital of Sukkur, seeking a detailed feasibility report and PC-I for the controversial conversion of its orthopaedic ward into a trauma centre.

The two-member bench, comprising Justice Amjad Ali Bohio and Justice Ali Haider Ada, heard a constitutional petition regarding the dilapidated condition of the orthopaedic ward at the hospital and its alleged illegal conversion into the trauma center.

The petition was filed by Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) leader Lala Asad Pathan through his counsel Barrister Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.

The petitioner contented that the ward building was converted into the trauma center in violation of rules and regulations, causing severe hardship to patients.

Barrister Khan informed the court that the building had served as an orthopaedic ward for several months before being converted into the trauma center.

He maintained that a separate building should exist for the orthopaedic department while a fully equipped and dedicated building should be allocated for the trauma center.

According to the petitioner’s counsel, this “arbitrary” shift has left patients in limbo.

During the hearing, the deputy secretary of health and other officials appeared before the court.

The government counsel stated that initially a 50-bed emergency ward was being establishevd, which was later designated as the orthopaedic department and subsequently as a trauma center.

The bench questioned how multiple departments within a trauma center could function effectively in a single building.

The court noted that the Sukkur commissioner had also raised concerns regarding the condition of the orthopaedic ward.

The court ordered that the PC-I and feasibility report of the project related to the building work and name change be submitted.

During the hearing, the deputy secretary, government lawyer and hospital administration were unable to produce the required documents.

Expressing displeasure over the lack of documentation, the bench questioned under what legal justification the use and name of the government building were changed, directing that complete records and documents related to the matter be presented on the next hearing on March 5.

Published in Dawn, February 27th, 2026