KARACHI, Sept 7: The Sindh High Court upheld on Wednesday the ban imposed by the city district government on ‘gutka’, ‘pan masala’ and identical substances. The CDGK issued a notification in June to ban the manufacture, sale, use or possession of ‘gutka’ in the city limits. The notification was challenged by a ‘pan masala’ manufacturer of Korangi, who said he was producing the banned items under municipal licence.

The ban deprived him of the means of his livelihood in violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution. The ‘masala’ prepared by him was quite popular. The CDGK, he said, had no authority to issue the impugned notification under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance (SLGO).

The petitioner described the ban as illegal and unconstitutional.

Contesting the petition on behalf of the city government, Advocate Manzoor Ahmed submitted that the prohibition was imposed under the SLGO, which empowered the CDGK to proscribe eatables injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. A number of laboratories have testified that ‘gutka’, ‘babul’ and ‘pan masala’ were harmful to the extent of being carcinogenic. The licence obtained by the petitioner has expired. The provincial mohtasib had clamped a ban on them as far back as the year 2000. No fundamental right was available to endanger human life, the counsel said.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Mohammad Afzal Soomro, upheld the notification and dismissed the petition.

NOTICE TO BUILDER: Another division bench, comprising Justices Mushir Alam and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, issued notices to the builder and the Karachi Building Control Authority in a petition challenging construction of an apartment complex on plot number 1/28 in front of the Customs House.

Advocate Abdul Jabbar Korai submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Karachi Helpline Welfare Organization, that no action was generally taken while an unauthorized structure was being raised. The KBCA came into action only when the construction had been completed. He said the builder of the violative structure had sanction for a ground-plus-four-floor complex. He had already started building the fifth floor and intended to raise another floor.