• SHC notes govt lawyers couldn’t offer any plausible explanation for non-framing of rules
• LG dept says draft rules and legislative proposals under consideration

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court has questioned whether the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) can lawfully grant approvals of building plans and regulate construction even if its rules under the provincial building control law have not been framed.

Taking exception to an inordinate delay in framing rules under the Sindh Building Control Ordinance (SBCO) 1979, a constitutional bench observed that apparently the SBCA had been granting approval of building plans without any lawful cover.

The bench, headed by Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, observed this while hearing a petition, which claimed that the SBCO was promulgated in 1979 and despite a lapse of over 40 years its rules had not been framed yet.

The judges summoned the chief secretary, local government secretary and SBCA director general to appear in court on Feb 10 and explain whether the authority can lawfully grant approvals or regulate construction and other ancillary work in the province particularly in Karachi in the absence of the rules as mandated under Section 21 of the SBCO.

In its order, the court noted that comments filed by the local government department indicated that draft rules and legislative proposals were under consideration.

However, Advocate Tariq Mansoor, who filed the petition in 2021, disputed the so-called draft rules and argued that they were not in conformity with Section 21 of the SBCO which required legislative amendment rather than delegated legislation.

The petitioner also referred to Section 7-B of the ordinance emphasising that master planning for all districts in Sindh was a statutory obligation and no change about land use can be lawfully undertaken without an approved master plan and government sanction.

The petitioner further pointed out that the committees, constituted by the SBCA, for reviewing past conversions and approving plans cannot override the parent statute and binding judgements of the Supreme Court on the subject matter.

A provincial law officer, along with SBCA lawyers, appeared in court and submitted that the Sindh Building Control Act, 2014 was enacted and it had substantially strengthened the statutory framework of SBCO by formally incorporating town & master planning and site development mechanism within the regulatory authority of SBCA.

He said that it also empowered the SBCA to prepare master plans for all districts subject to the government approval.

They also submitted that these master plans had been lawfully regulating development, land use, zoning, public amenities and building activity.

The bench noted that the SBCA was tasked with town planning, building control, approval of building plans, demolition of dangerous or unauthorised structures and land use across the province in accordance with the rules framed under Section 21 of the SBCO.

However, it noted that the advocate general, SBCA and other law officers could not justify the SBCA’s authority to regulate construction in the absence of such rules and they also could not offer any plausible explanation for non-framing of rules as no such rules have been placed on record.

The bench stated in the order: “If this is the position of the case, prima facie, approvals granted by the SBCA during this period, in the absence of rules, if not earlier framed, appear to be without lawful sanction, resulting in unplanned urban development, a lack of basic amenities, and adverse impacts on sewerage, water supply, traffic, and public safety.

“Despite the approval of master plan for Karachi as discussed supra, SBCA appears to be disregarding it while approving unsafe and non-complaint projects. Moreover, the 2002 regulations prima facie exceed the scope of the 1979 Ordinance,” it added.

Pleas against e-challans

Another constitutional bench of the SHC on Wednesday directed various provincial authorities to file comments on a set of petitions filed against heavy traffic fines under the e-challan system.

At the outset of the hearing, one of the petitioners submitted that most respondents had not filed comments yet while the DIG-traffic had filed a generic reply earlier instead of para-wise comments.

A counsel for another petitioner argued that the copy of the comments filed by the Sindh Mass Transit Authority at the last hearing had not been provided to him. Thereafter, a representative of the authority undertook to provide the same during the course of day.

Adjourning the hearing till Feb 18, the bench said, “Let comments be submitted by the respondents across all petitions with copy being supplied to court for the petitioners before next date so that the matters may be proceeding with.”

Published in Dawn, January 29th, 2026