Not interested if ‘adoption’ of park causes friction, says Bahria Town

Sindh govt and KMC are at odds over ‘adoption’ of city’s iconic Bagh Ibne Qasim

KARACHI: A private real estate company informed the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday that it was not interested in 'adopting' the city's iconic Bagh Ibne Qasim if the matter would cause any confrontation between the Pakistan Peoples Party-led Sindh government and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) - Pakistan-led city government.

This was verbally informed by a lawyer engaged by the Bahria Town in a case filed by Karachi Mayor Wasim Akhtar, challenging the provincial government's move to hand over the public park to the real estate tycoon for 10 years.

The mayor had challenged the March 30 notification through which the local government (LG) department had taken over Bagh Ibne Qasim and the subsequent agreement through which the Bahria Town 'adopted' the park.



Advocate Khalid Javed Khan filed the power of attorney on behalf of the Bahria Town and requested for time to file comments.

However, he verbally informed the bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, that his client was no more interested in adopting the public park if any controversy was created over the move.

Granting him time till May 9 to file comments, the bench extended its earlier stay order against handing over of the park to Bahria Town till the next date of hearing.

Earlier, the PPP-led provincial government defended the move, accusing the MQM-Pakistan's city mayor of failing to develop the public park in question.

In their joint reply, the secretary and joint secretary of the local government department alleged that the petitioner, Akhtar, since assuming the charge of his office of mayor, had not taken any interest in the development of Bagh Ibne Qasim. At present, the park and its facilities are in deplorable condition, they said, adding that for many years, the public had not been visiting the park due to its pathetic conditions.



Denying the allegations that the notification was issued and agreement signed illegally, they maintained that the notification was issued after approval of the competent authority and in accordance with the provisions of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013. The court was informed that the respective officers of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) were consulted time and again by the respondents.

They further informed that the agreement signed between the LG department and Bahria Town carries the signature of the director-general (DG) of the parks department as witness, who is a BS-20 officer of the KMC and ‘directly responsible’ for maintaining parks.

"The respondents are not legally bound to consult the petitioner," the officials said. "[The] park is the property of the KMC but it was transferred to the KMC by Karachi Development Authority.” They placed before the court the notification dated May 19, 1994, and letter of the parks DG dated February 20, 2017.



The provincial government maintained that the notification had been issued after fulfilment of all the legal formalities under Section 74 of the Sindh Local Government Act (SLGA), after which the Sindh government is the competent authority to take over any function of the KMC.

Objecting to the Karachi mayor's plea, the officials argued that the 'petitioner is not competent' to challenge any action of the government regarding affairs of the KMC, which is a council as defined under Section 7 of the SLGA because under Sections 87 and 88, the 'provincial government is authorised to exercise general provision and control over the councils'.

It was argued that the local government department had signed the agreement keeping in view the interests of the general public.

It further argued that the KMC was paying public money to contractors for maintaining the park but due to this agreement, huge sums had been saved. Moreover, the government assured that as per various clauses of the agreement, Bahria Town had taken financial responsibility for the development of the park and not a single inch will be used for commercial or any other purpose except for the general public.



The government alleged that the petitioner, the Karachi mayor, had failed to point out a single clause of the agreement that is against public interest or allows any single activity as alleged by him.

It further alleged that the petitioner had failed to point out any violation of any provision of the SLGA, 2013, adding "none of the authority or power of the Karachi mayor is usurped by the respondents.

The officials maintained that the petitioner had also failed to point out any illegality committed by the respondents and alleged that the petition was filed with mala fide intentions and to waste the time of the court.

They added that the agreement has been executed in accordance with the provision of the Sindh Government Rules of Business 1986 after consultation with the law department and with approval of the competent authority, they added.

"Neither [has] any fundamental right of the petitioner been infringed nor any harm or loss to the general public been caused by issuance of the notification and signing of the agreement dated March 30," maintained the secretary. “On the contrary, the notification and agreement has been signed to provide better entertainment to the general public and to save public money, which was spent by the government authorities for award of the contract to maintain Bagh Ibne Qasim.”



The secretary added that from the very beginning, the maintenance work of the park was awarded to private contractors for which the public money was spent. He mentioned that in the year 2012-2013, the contract for maintenance of the park was awarded to M/s Mascot and Biz for Rs42.9 million from August 1, 2012, to June 30, 2013.

He added that the contract for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 was awarded to M/s Crystal Paramount vide agreement dated March 2, 2015. The contract was awarded to Bahria Town Private Limited at Rs17.325 million for one year, which was 65% less than the previous contract.

Therefore, the secretary contended that no right of the petitioner, Akhtar, was infringed neither was any public loss or harm caused.

The provincial secretary alleged that the Karachi mayor had filed the petition with mala fide intentions, which should be rejected with cost.