SHC seeks replies over road encroachments

Petitioner claims devotees inconvenienced by illegal structures near shrine


Our Correspondent September 26, 2020
The first day of Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi’s annual urs passed in peace amid tightened security as a large number of people thronged the shrine on Friday. PHOTOS: ATHAR KHAN/EXPRESS

The Sindh High Court (SHC) issued on Saturday notices to the Sindh government, chief secretary, Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) and others over a plea against encroachments near Abdullah Shah Ghazi's shrine in Karachi.

The petitioner's counsel maintained that some areas of Bagh Ibn-e-Qasim had been illegally occupied, adding that devotees visiting the shrine were inconvenienced with the roads being blocked by illegal structures.

He claimed that the Supreme Court had previously declared it illegal to block roads with barriers and barricades.

The court issued notices to the Sindh government, chief secretary, SBCA and others, seeking replies within four weeks.

Verdict overturned

Separately, the SHC accepted appeals by two alleged gang members against the sentences handed out to them for the murder of a police official during the Lyari operation.

The court nullified the verdict given by an anti-terrorism court, which had sentenced the men to life imprisonment.

According to the police, the men had shot dead constable Pervez in an encounter in 2014.

Contempt of court

Meanwhile, a contempt of court plea was filed in the high court against alleged corruption involving own pay scale (OPS), deputation and non-technical officials in SBCA.

The petitioner maintained that over 80 OPS and deputation officials had been appointed in the SBCA, claiming that the merging of deputation officials within the institution and the appointment of non-technical staff on technical posts was a violation of the Supreme Court's orders.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 27th, 2020.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ