KARACHI, July 10: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, on Wednesday, admitted a petition challenging the notification of charged parking outside Uzma Arcade, Sasi Arcade and Marine Point situated in Block-7, Main Clifton Road, and directed the respondents to deposit the receivables with the Nazir of the court.
The bench comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervez fixed the matter for Aug 9.
Represented by Jawaid Siddiqui, advocate, the petitioners’ point was that the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 2001, does not empower the City Government to levy or charge parking fee.
Counsel for the respondents, Mr Manzoor, contended that the City Government has the power due to the reason and bylaws passed in 1975, under the People’s Local Government Ordinance of 1972.
However, Abbas Ali, AAG, on inquiry by the bench, submitted that in his view, the SLGO 2001 does not empower the City Government to levy any charge in the name of charged parking. Counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit before the court.
The bench, after hearing brief contentions, directed the respondents to deposit the amount being collected in the name of charged parking with the Nazir, along with the daily financial statement. The amount will be deposited in a profitable savings account until final decision on the vires of the local government’s authority to charge or levy the fee is decided by the court.
The petitioners, in their application for urgent hearing, had complained that a member of the Sasi Owner’s Association was called by the monitoring team and the director of finance and asked him to withdraw the petition against charged parking.
The provincial government, City Government, Saddar Town Nazim and district officer were made respondents in the petition.
It is the case of the petitioners that they and other common daily visitors use the car parking in front of the buildings known as Uzma Arcade, Sasi Arcade and Marine Point. The district officer (respondent no 4), vide notification no 627/DO(R)/02, dated May 30 (regarding charged parking) had taken away the vested and inherent rights of the petitioners.
It was the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order was bad in law and on facts of the case. Respondent no 4 had no jurisdiction to issue the notification and to levy cess or commit any act which might financially burden the citizens.
None of the provisions in the SLGO 2001, empowered the respondent nos 2 to 4 to issue such a notification. The impugned notification is discriminatory in nature and against the constitution wherein it is provided that “...no person shall be condemned, prosecuted or discriminated.”
Furthermore, the persons placed in the parking area are issuing slips wherein it is mentioned “Parking at owner’s risk,” which implies that even after recovery of the amount, they are not responsible for keeping 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 arrived for shopping in government vehicles.
The present notification was therefore illegal. Furthermore, the manner in which the persons have been authorized to collect the amount, there was no check and balance on the money sought to be collected and it was clearly an act of nepotism/ favouritism, the petitioners alleged.
It was their claim that under Section 116 read with 1st schedule of the SLGO 2001, the City Government was required to publish and invite public objections regarding any levy of cess, rent, tolls, etc, but the respondents miserably failed to do so, as no publication was made in any largest circulating newspapers.
There was no knowledge about such a publication inviting objections from the public.
It is the petitioners’ case that the respondent had issued the notification without adopting the rules as prescribed under the SLGO 2001, read with Local Government Ordinance 1979 (which was repealed, but the bylaws are still in force).