SBCA told to consult chief fire officer on bylaws

Fire helpline made functional, court informed

The Sindh High Court directed the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) on Tuesday to consult the chief fire officer on building by-laws and sought arguments from the petitioner on a report submitted by the SBCA.

A bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, issued the directives during the hearing of a plea pertaining to fire emergency regulations.

At the hearing, the government lawyer told the court that fire helpline 16 had been made functional.

The court, however, asked the lawyer why did faults in cables, which disrupted the helpline, occur in the first place and why did it take so long to repair the cables. “The faults were fixed only after we ordered. Why did you wait for the court to issue orders [to repair the cables]?” remarked Justice Mazhar.

Besides, the court enquired about the progress on repair of fire tenders.

The municipal commissioner informed the court that out of order vehicles were being repaired and some new ones would soon be added to the fire department’s fleet. He said that just 14 fire tenders, belonging to the fire department, were operational in Karachi and remaining 30 were being repaired.

It is expected that they will be repaired within a month, while 48 more vehicles would be provided by the federal government, he said.

Further enquiring about the progress on building by-laws, the court remarked, “Who approves building plans that don’t have emergency exits?”

Following this, the SBCA submitted a report on building by-laws to the court and an SBCA representative informed the court that his department was waiting for the cabinet to approve the fire safety code. He further assured the court that the SBCA would approve only those plans that had emergency exits.

Stating that all approved building plans must have fire exits, the court directed the SBCA to consult the chief fire officer on building by-laws. It further sought arguments from the petitioner in light of the report submitted by the SBCA and adjourned the hearing until January 14.

Counter reply sought

The same bench also sought a counter reply from the petitioner, who had filed a plea pertaining to the crises of wheat, sugar and other essential items in the country, after the Bureau of Supply and Price Control director submitted a report to the court.

According to the plea, the penalty for hoarding has been defined under the Hoarding and Black Market Act, 1948, while the Karachi Essential Articles Processing (Profiteering and Hoarding) Act, 1953, though enacted, has never been implemented.

The Bureau of Supply and Price Control director submitted an implementation report on the plea, according to which Sindh government had authorised all commissioners and deputy commissioners to take action against hoarders and profiteers. The report further states that warehouses across Sindh have been registered and details of stocks housed in each of them have been recorded.

As per the report, there are 3,603 warehouses across 29 districts of Sindh and sessions judges had nominated civil judges for taking action against profiteers and hoarders. It states that the Bureau of Supply and Price Control receives reports regarding this daily and so far, 115 complaints of hoarding and profiteering from across had been addressed.

Following the submission of the report, the court directed the petitioner to submit a counter reply on the report by January 19.

Illegal appointments

Meanwhile, a two-member bench, headed by Justice Nadeem Akhtar and comprising Justice Adnanul Karim Memon, dismissed the request to hear a plea challenging over 3,000 appointments, allegedly made illegally, in the provincial local government department on priority basis.

The petitioner cited a report published in a newspaper and said that over 3,000 appointments were made in the local government department during 2012 and 2103.

“How can the court issue a notice on the basis of a report published in a newspaper?” remarked Justice Akhtar.

Besides, Justice Memon stated that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was also investigating illegal appointments in Sindh.

The petitioner, however, contended that the NAB was probing into illegal appointments in the provincial local government department.

At this, the court stated that it could not issue notices to anyone until relevant material was attached to the plea and rejected the petitioner’s request to hear his plea on priority basis.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 9^th, 2020.