0
PESHAWAR, July 23: The Peshawar High Court on Tuesday suspended order of the provincial government regarding replacement of the Swat district education officer and sought comments from the government and the concerned district nazim.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ziauddin Khattak and Justice Mohammad Alam Khan issued the order after preliminary hearing of a writ petition filed by the DEO, Sherzada Khan, who has challenged his replacement by the provincial government. The bench directed that the provincial education secretary and the Swat district nazim should file comments in reply to the petition.
The petitioner stated that he was appointed Swat DEO on Dec 15, 2006. He added that on July 3, 2008 the provincial government issued order through which he was transferred and posted as an officer on special duty, whereas a junior officer of grade 17, Kameen Khan, was posted in his place.
He stated that his transfer was illegal and unconstitutional. He added that under the Local Government Rules no officer of grade 17 and above could be transferred by the provincial government without consultation with the district nazim. He added that in his case the district nazim was not consulted.
He requested the court to suspend the order of the provincial government till final disposal of his writ petition.
COMMENTS SOUGHT: The Peshawar High Court on Wednesday sought comments from the City Development and Municipal Department’s director general and the building control authority in a writ petition challenging construction of a private school in a residential area of Hayatabad Township.
A two-member bench issued the orders after initial hearing of a writ petition filed by Akhlaque Ahmad and some other residents of Hayatabad Township.
The petitioners’ counsel stated that in 1990 a greenbelt was constructed in Phase 1, Hayatabad and later on approval was given by the erstwhile Peshawar Development Authority for construction of a mosque and a primary school in the area. He stated that later the authorities favoured a private school and allotted a plot to it in the same area. He added that on the said plot the management constructed the Forward School System and College.
He stated that the said private educational institution is located in a double storey building and now the management had started construction of the third storey despite the fact that the said institution was situated in residential area. The petitioners stated that despite their requests made to the CDMD to check this violation, the authorities had been allowing the school management to carry out the illegal construction work.
The petitioners stated that under the rules no commercial activity could be carried out in a residential area.
