KARACHI, Oct 13: The Sindh High Court on Thursday allowed the owners of Metropole Hotel to carry out renovation and repair works in the building but strictly in accordance with the rules and regulations.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice Mushir Alam was seized with the hearing of a constitutional petition assailing the declaration of the building as a protected one by the provincial culture and heritage department on April 25, 2011.

The petitioner — Karachi Property Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd — impleaded the culture secretary, the chairman of the advisory committee on heritage, the City District Government Karachi and the Karachi Building Control Authority as respondents.

It was stated in the petition that the company in 1967 acquired the ownership of the land and building of Metropole Hotel built in the latter part of the 20th century.The petitioner firm, through its authorised officer Imtiaz Mughul, submitted that the hotel was closed down in 2004 and subsequently the portion housing it was demolished. It said that now the building housed only commercial offices rented out to tenants.

The petitioner stated that the culture department through a notification included Hotel Metropole in the 1,061 buildings declared as heritage structures.

It said that the hotel was constructed in a modern style of architecture and had no archaeological value, nor did it have any distinctive architectural features to allow it to be classified as part of cultural heritage.

The petitioner stated that the respondent's officials told its staff that they would not be allowed any alteration, demolition or re-construction on the premises.

It was pleaded that the impugned notification might be declared unlawful and illegal and the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the notification or from taking any adverse action against the petitioner.

The bench ordered that the publication of the notification might not be gazetted till the next date of hearing which would be later fixed by the court's office.

The court also ordered that the petitioner would have to remove the reconstruction and renovation in case the petition failed.