Plaza on public pool’s land: CDA’s volte-face on collecting fees questioned
SC gives parties a week to file review petitions, will form a committee to determine dues owed to CDA
Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: AFP
The top civic body on Wednesday came under criticism from the Supreme Court (SC) for an apparent volte-face on fees owed by the owners of a plaza who wished to build an additional storey.
The court allowed parties to file a review petition against its past order and directed that it will form a committee which will examine whether the civic agency is owed any dues on account of approval and construction of the plaza.
The directions were issued by a five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, on Wednesday as it heard a case relating to the construction of a multi-storey plaza on land reserved for building a public pool.
At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, the CJP reviewed a sworn statement submitted by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) chairman that the plaza owners do not owe the civic body any money.
CJP Nisar remarked that it was odd that the CDA was content on letting Rs90 million in revenues go so easily.
In its October 30 order, the CDA had adopted the stance that the plaza owners need to pay the civic body Rs90 million in approval fees for building a second floor of the plaza as determined by prevailing approval rates of the body. Based on this stance, the court had granted the plaza owners time to pay the dues.
But later, in a different case, the CDA chairman submitted a sworn statement which noted that the plaza’s owners are not bound to pay any dues to the CDA.
The court termed this situation as surprising.
“What is the CDA chairman’s hurry [in putting this case to bed]?” CJP Nisar asked the CDA chief on Wednesday.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan joined in, noting that questions have to be raised on the approvals granted by CDA officer Sindhu for construction additional storeys in the plaza.
The CDA chairman explained that after a meeting took place in the office of the additional attorney general, he had personally reviewed the file of the plaza and submitted a reply to the court under oath.
The civic agency’s lawyer suggested that maybe the CDA chief did not have the court’s order on hand which could have caused some misunderstanding.
On hearing this, CJP asked the CDA chairman on what ethical grounds should his sworn statement be accepted. He was then advised to exercise caution when submitting sworn statements to the apex court.
The CJP, though, exhorted the CDA chief, to tell the truth.
At this, the CDA chairman stressed that he had only spoken the truth in front of the court.
With the situation heating up, the additional attorney general suggested that if the court permits, the CDA chief’s sworn statement could be withdrawn.
The CJP also expressed surprise that no one had filed a review petition against the court’s orders from October 30. The counsel for the plaza owners told the court that they were unable to file a review petition because they never received a copy of the SC’s October 30 order.
The top court then granted the parties a week to file a review petition in the case.
Further hearings were adjourned until the first week of December.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 15th, 2018.
The court allowed parties to file a review petition against its past order and directed that it will form a committee which will examine whether the civic agency is owed any dues on account of approval and construction of the plaza.
The directions were issued by a five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court (SC), led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, on Wednesday as it heard a case relating to the construction of a multi-storey plaza on land reserved for building a public pool.
At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, the CJP reviewed a sworn statement submitted by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) chairman that the plaza owners do not owe the civic body any money.
CJP Nisar remarked that it was odd that the CDA was content on letting Rs90 million in revenues go so easily.
In its October 30 order, the CDA had adopted the stance that the plaza owners need to pay the civic body Rs90 million in approval fees for building a second floor of the plaza as determined by prevailing approval rates of the body. Based on this stance, the court had granted the plaza owners time to pay the dues.
But later, in a different case, the CDA chairman submitted a sworn statement which noted that the plaza’s owners are not bound to pay any dues to the CDA.
The court termed this situation as surprising.
“What is the CDA chairman’s hurry [in putting this case to bed]?” CJP Nisar asked the CDA chief on Wednesday.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan joined in, noting that questions have to be raised on the approvals granted by CDA officer Sindhu for construction additional storeys in the plaza.
The CDA chairman explained that after a meeting took place in the office of the additional attorney general, he had personally reviewed the file of the plaza and submitted a reply to the court under oath.
The civic agency’s lawyer suggested that maybe the CDA chief did not have the court’s order on hand which could have caused some misunderstanding.
On hearing this, CJP asked the CDA chairman on what ethical grounds should his sworn statement be accepted. He was then advised to exercise caution when submitting sworn statements to the apex court.
The CJP, though, exhorted the CDA chief, to tell the truth.
At this, the CDA chairman stressed that he had only spoken the truth in front of the court.
With the situation heating up, the additional attorney general suggested that if the court permits, the CDA chief’s sworn statement could be withdrawn.
The CJP also expressed surprise that no one had filed a review petition against the court’s orders from October 30. The counsel for the plaza owners told the court that they were unable to file a review petition because they never received a copy of the SC’s October 30 order.
The top court then granted the parties a week to file a review petition in the case.
Further hearings were adjourned until the first week of December.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 15th, 2018.