KARACHI, July 2: While the petition challenging the notification concerning levy of parking fee for vehicles outside Uzma Arcade, Sasi Arcade and Marine Point situated in Block-7, Main Clifton Road, is pending in the Sindh High Court, a member of the Sasi Arcade Owner’s Association was called by the monitoring team and the director finance of the city government and asked him to withdraw the petition against charged parking.

This was stated in an application for urgent hearing filed on Tuesday with the SHC by petitioner Shahid Imam, who also alleged he was told that nothing would happen against the respondents and he was rather advised to cooperate with the people who were roaming around the parking lot of Uzma Arcade.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad and Justice Musheer Alam, had put the respondents on notice for June 17. The Sindh government, City District Government Karachi, Nazim Saddar Town and district officer, charged parking, were made respondents in the petition filed by the Uzma Arcade Owners Association.

It is the case of the petitioners that they and other common daily visitors used the car parking in front of the buildings known as Uzma Arcade/Sasi Arcade and Marine Point, but the district officer (respondent No 4), vide notification No 627/DO(R)/02 dated May 30 (regarding charged parking), had taken away their vested and inherent rights.

The alleged illegal action caused bitterness and created apprehension that the atmosphere of prevailing law d order the car thefts and robbery might be perpetuated, they claimed.

When the matter came up on June 29, law officer of the city government sought time for filing replies to the contentions made in the petition. The matter was fixed before Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Wahid Bux Brohi. The matter was fixed for today, but no replies were submitted as of today. None of the respondents turned up.

The court was surprised to note that financial implications of charged parking was not reflected in the budget documents of the city government. It directed that on the next date of hearing the total financial account of charged parking should be provided to the court.

The petitioners, represented by Jawaid Ahmed Siddiqui, advocate, maintained that the occupants were not aware of the identity of such persons who were allegedly puncturing tyres, harassing ladies and demanding payments on the strength of the so-called notification.

The petitioners approached the defendant No 4, the author of the notification, for the withdrawal of the notification which, according to them, was not only contrary to the law, but also against the fundamental rights guaranteed under articles 24 of the constitution, which he refused.

It was the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order was bad in law and on facts of the case. The respondent No 4 had no jurisdiction to issue the notification and to levy cess or commit any act which might cause financial burdens upon the citizen.

None of the provisions of the Local Government Ordinance of 2001 empowered the respondent Nos 2 to 4 to issue such notification. The impugned notification was discriminatory in nature and was against the constitution wherein it had been provided that “... no person shall be condemned, prosecuted or discriminated.”

In this notification it is mentioned that: ... that only government vehicles are exempt from payment of Parking Fee...” which was highly objectionable and insult to the sensibility of law-abiding citizens and was highly discriminatory in nature, the petitioners claimed.

According to them, in one day approximately 500 government vehicles, with government/local bodies number plates use the parking lot around the shopping area. Most of the time occupants of such vehicles are family members of the so called officials or non-officials roaming around the vicinity/locality in government vehicles.

Furthermore, the persons placed in the parking area were issuing slips wherein it was mentioned that “PARKING AT OWNERS RISK,” which implied that even after recovery of amount they were not responsible to keep an eye on the vehicles. On the contrary, there was apprehension that the vehicles would be stolen, they maintained.

They pointed out that government vehicles were being used and parked not only during office hours, but also as late as 10pm. It was further submitted that in this area there was no government office at all but most of the time government officials and their families visit the area for shopping in government vehicles.

The present notification was therefore illegal. Furthermore, the manner in which the persons had been authorized to collect the amount, there was no check & balance on the money sought to be collected and it was clearly an act of nepotism/favouritism, the petitioners alleged.

The petitioners prayed for declaring the impugned notification void, illegal, without legal effect and of no legal consequence.