Court extends stay on construction of bypass

IHC judge says QAU admin should take faculty into confidence about land swap with CDA


Our Correspondent October 25, 2022
Photo: File

print-news
ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday extended the stay, halting construction work on a portion of the multi-billion Bhara Kahu bypass project till the next hearing and sought a reply from the federal government.

IHC judge Mian Gul Aurangzeb, while extending the stay issued earlier on a plea of a Quaid-e-Azam University professor against the bypass project, made residents of Murree, Kashmir and Bhara Kahu including Sufyan Ali a party to the case.

During Monday’s hearing, Jalil Akhtar Abbasi and Raja Shakeel appeared on behalf of Sufyan Abbasi and other petitioners. They argued that the bypass project was for the public and that the stay order should be vacated.

To this, the court said that there was no doubt that the bypass project was necessary but legal requirements will also have to be fulfilled.

The court said that apparently, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) has given a lot to Quaid-e-Azam University in exchange for the land and the university administration should inform its professors about the benefits received from the CDA.

CDA lawyer Jawad Nazir said that the teachers of Quaid-e-Azam University were blackmailing the civic agency by stopping the project.

To this, the court said that the university administration should explain everything to its faculty by Friday to decide the matter.

Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb said that the court was aware that the cost of the project escalates manifold if work on the project was stopped.

The counsel for the environmental agency said that the CDA has submitted an environment assessment report and it was being scrutinised. To this, the court asked whether the CDA could start work on the bypass project without clearance by the environmental agency.

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