ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the federal and Sindh governments to explain whether pedestrian bridge over Sharae Faisal on Karsaz Road in Karachi falls within cantonment area where 1,200 trees have been chopped for advertisement billboards.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Mian Saqib Nisar had taken up a petition moved by the Pakhar Welfare Association, Karachi – an organisation working for improvement of environment.

The petitioner had sought an order from the apex court requiring the federal and provincial governments to take immediate steps for protecting trees and plants in the city.

The court direction came when Deputy Attorney General Sohail Mehmood argued before the bench that the matter was a provincial subject and the federal government had nothing to do with it.

The court asked the respondents to submit a detailed answer to the points raised in the petition.

The respondents are the federal, Sindh and Karachi district governments, the Karachi commissioner, the Cantonment Board Faisal executive officer, the senior director, transport and communication, KMC, the director advertisement KMC, the naval commander Karachi, the naval commander Johar and advertising agency Nexttier.

The petitioner pleads that scores of trees have been cut down from the green belt of Karsaz/Sharae Faisal, opposite the PNS Karsaz, only to erect the pedestrian bridge that too in the same vicinity where two overhead bridges already exist.

Unfortunately, the old pedestrian bridges are not open for public use because of security concerns. Thus erecting the third overhead bridge at the same point was an obvious act of causing loss to the national exchequer only to allegedly facilitate the advertisement company for affixing hoardings on both sides of the overhead bridge, the petitioner regretted.

The petitioner reminded that the naval commander Karachi and naval commander Johar have already erected boundary walls around PNS Karsaz on the green belt of Karsaz road because of terrorist incidents, so developing a new overhead bridge was not only an unnecessary burden on the exchequer but also against the public interest and, therefore, should be restricted.

The petitioner alleged that some of the respondents were backing elements responsible for spoiling the environment of the city by cutting down the trees from the bank of the roads and to discourage the benefits of trees which not only combat climate changes but also provide oxygen and keep the air clean as well as make the atmosphere cool.

The petitioner claimed that the advertising company was illegally being facilitated to install hoardings/billboards in violation of rules and regulations enumerated in the Advertisement Rules and Regulation Act, 2003.

The petitioner sought explanation through the court from the respondents why the overhead bridge was being constructed at a security-risk point causing loss to the exchequer.

The petitioner also requested the court to declare that the healthy green trees have been cut down illegally in contravention of the Environmental Protection Act, 1997.

The petitioner asked the federal and provincial governments to take immediate steps for the protection of trees and plants and prohibit unnecessary building of overhead bridges at the security-risk points.

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2016