Illegal occupation of CAA properties irks PAC

Panel expresses concern over irregularities in airport construction projects

Saqib Virk June 11, 2021


The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) — the supreme parliamentary forum for accountability of federal government departments – expressed on Thursday strong reservations about illegal occupation of properties of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

A PAC meeting, held under the chairmanship of Rana Tanveer Hussain, examined the audit objections of the Aviation Division for the year 2019-20.

The committee expressed grave concern over the lease of kitchen land at Karachi Airport from the year 1994, seeking details of illegal occupation of properties of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

Audit officials apprised the committee of the issue of leasing land for construction of kitchens at Jinnah International Airport Karachi by the Civil Aviation Authority, claiming the land was never used for the purpose.

Read CAA reveals massive irregularities in pilots’ exams

“The lease is coming to an end in 2024 but the rent has not been fully recovered yet which caused the loss of Rs318 million over the years,” the committee was told.

However, DG Civil Aviation Authority told the committee that the lease is being paid but the kitchen has still not been built.

“That place is empty. We don't understand why they are just paying the rent for it?” the DG said, adding a case pertaining to its cancellation was currently pending in court.

Chairman Committee Rana Tanveer Hussain, while expressing displeasure over the incompetence of CAA officials, asked, “Why did you remain mum for 20 years.

“If it were mine or yours, would it have remained empty for twenty-five years?”

The aviation secretary assured the committee that a detailed report will be submitted within a month.
The committee directed the CAA officials to prepare a detailed clarification on the matter and adjourned the session.


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