Heritage sites: LHC sets aside NOCs for Orange Line project
LHC orders fresh, independent study of antiquities
LHC orders fresh, independent study of antiquities. PHOTO: FILE
LAHORE:
Timely completion of the Orange Line Metro Train project appeared to have been thrown in doubt on Friday after a Lahore High Court division bench disallowed construction near 10 heritage sites until after a fresh heritage impact assessment by an independent panel of experts constituted preferably in consultation with the UNESCO.
The bench, consisting of Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Shahid Karim, announced the judgement it had reserved on July 13 on petitions against the project. On January 28, the court had stayed construction activities within 200 feet of the historical sites.
The project administration had, however, continued work on other sections of the route.
The bench also declared illegal the no-objection certificates (NOCs) issued by the Archaeology Department director general allowing construction near the sites. The director general had issued the NOCs under the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985. Justice Sheikh has penned the 83-page verdict. Justice Karim has endorsed the judgement in a 226-page note.
The court has directed the Archeology Department director general to engage independent consultants, consisting of a penal of experts preferably in consultation with the UNESCO, to conduct a fresh, independent study regarding protected antiquities and special premises.
The bench has dismissed the petition challenging the Environmental Impact Assessments of the project as non-maintainable. The court said that following a presentation by the Lahore Development Authority chief engineer, the Archaeology Department DG had issued the NOCs without applying an independent mind and without seeking an expert opinion, or holding an in-house meeting.
The court said expert opinion had not been obtained from an archeologist, an architect or a historian regarding the heritage impact assessment.
“… the LDA chief engineer was admittedly not an expert on archeology. He was a construction person. Therefore, his opinion and presentation were apparently not relevant enough to put all heritage sites under the threat of destruction,” the verdict reads.
To the question raised by the respondent regarding the locus standi of the petitioner, the bench said that it was a settled law that when public functionaries failed to perform their duties, or if they acted illegally or in excess of their jurisdiction related to public duties, any concerned person could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court.
In his note, Justice Karim said there was need for independence and lack of bias in public authorities exercising discretion. “… decision-makers, to the greatest extent possible, should approach the issue with an open mind, independent of the government, vested interest of any kind, public and parliamentary opinion, the media, political parties and pressure groups.”
Advocate Shahid Hamid, counsel for the government, had said that bulk of the civil works were in an advanced stage. Nearly 50 per cent of the budgeted expenditure for civil works had been made. More than 70 per cent of the budgeted expenditure for land acquisition had been disbursed, he said. He had submitted that due to these reasons, it was not possible to change the alignment or technology for the construction of the project. He had said discontinuing the project would result in adverse consequences for the country, possibly including the cancellation of Chinese loan for the scheme.
Advocate Azhar Siddique had represented the petitioners, including architect Kamil Khan Mumtaz.
Later on Friday, the Punjab advocate general met law officers concerned and decided to challenge the LHC verdict in the Supreme Court.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 20th, 2016.
Timely completion of the Orange Line Metro Train project appeared to have been thrown in doubt on Friday after a Lahore High Court division bench disallowed construction near 10 heritage sites until after a fresh heritage impact assessment by an independent panel of experts constituted preferably in consultation with the UNESCO.
The bench, consisting of Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Shahid Karim, announced the judgement it had reserved on July 13 on petitions against the project. On January 28, the court had stayed construction activities within 200 feet of the historical sites.
The project administration had, however, continued work on other sections of the route.
The bench also declared illegal the no-objection certificates (NOCs) issued by the Archaeology Department director general allowing construction near the sites. The director general had issued the NOCs under the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985. Justice Sheikh has penned the 83-page verdict. Justice Karim has endorsed the judgement in a 226-page note.
The court has directed the Archeology Department director general to engage independent consultants, consisting of a penal of experts preferably in consultation with the UNESCO, to conduct a fresh, independent study regarding protected antiquities and special premises.
The bench has dismissed the petition challenging the Environmental Impact Assessments of the project as non-maintainable. The court said that following a presentation by the Lahore Development Authority chief engineer, the Archaeology Department DG had issued the NOCs without applying an independent mind and without seeking an expert opinion, or holding an in-house meeting.
The court said expert opinion had not been obtained from an archeologist, an architect or a historian regarding the heritage impact assessment.
“… the LDA chief engineer was admittedly not an expert on archeology. He was a construction person. Therefore, his opinion and presentation were apparently not relevant enough to put all heritage sites under the threat of destruction,” the verdict reads.
To the question raised by the respondent regarding the locus standi of the petitioner, the bench said that it was a settled law that when public functionaries failed to perform their duties, or if they acted illegally or in excess of their jurisdiction related to public duties, any concerned person could invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the high court.
In his note, Justice Karim said there was need for independence and lack of bias in public authorities exercising discretion. “… decision-makers, to the greatest extent possible, should approach the issue with an open mind, independent of the government, vested interest of any kind, public and parliamentary opinion, the media, political parties and pressure groups.”
Advocate Shahid Hamid, counsel for the government, had said that bulk of the civil works were in an advanced stage. Nearly 50 per cent of the budgeted expenditure for civil works had been made. More than 70 per cent of the budgeted expenditure for land acquisition had been disbursed, he said. He had submitted that due to these reasons, it was not possible to change the alignment or technology for the construction of the project. He had said discontinuing the project would result in adverse consequences for the country, possibly including the cancellation of Chinese loan for the scheme.
Advocate Azhar Siddique had represented the petitioners, including architect Kamil Khan Mumtaz.
Later on Friday, the Punjab advocate general met law officers concerned and decided to challenge the LHC verdict in the Supreme Court.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 20th, 2016.