Sluggish progress: Court expresses concern over transfer of cooperative railways secretary

Railways directed to prepare a report on the implementation of its orders by March 16.


Our Correspondent March 14, 2012

ISLAMABAD:


The Supreme Court expressed concern on Tuesday over the sluggish progress of Pakistan Railways (PR) officials and sought a comprehensive compliance report on the implementation of its orders by March 16 during the hearing of the Railways suo motu case.


The court had earlier ordered PR high-ups to retrieve Railways land and initiate action against officials who were being held responsible for the irregularities in the parent ministry.

A three member-bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, also expressed concern over the abrupt transfer of Railways Board Secretary Shafiqullah, who had been assisting the court in the case. In reply, Pakistan Railways Chairman Arif Azeem assured the court that he would request the prime minister to reassign Shafiqullah to the Railways case.

In its written order the court observed: “it has been noticed that progress as per directions of the court by passing various orders has not been made. Therefore, we directed Railways to prepare a comprehensive report along with charts that shows compliance by Railways’ high ups to our orders and achievements as a result of our directions.”

The Railways chairman informed the court that only 78 passenger trains and eight freight trains out of the once-operational 242 trains were equipped for service, adding that financial constraints had held up the repair of 81 locomotives.

However, the chief justice pinned it down to a lack of commitment and dedication on the part of Railways high-ups, observing that their current pace of progress would suggest they need 10 years to retrieve Railways land from the land mafia.

The bench also observed that Railways was disposing of its property at nominal rates while paying no heed to its own financial constraints, adding that while huge plazas were constructed on Railways land, senior officials had only been active in taking action against orphans and the underprivileged.

“We have no issue if some land of authority was utilised for defence purposes, but for us the apathetic attitude of Railways officials is a matter of concern,” the chief justice said.

PR land breakdown

Arif Azeem went on to add that 1,300 acres of PR land were under the strategic forest region while 490 acres were under the control of Pakistan Rangers, adding that the land under the army and the Rangers was near border areas.

Azeem said 700 acres of land had been recovered in five months while plazas had been demolished in Karachi on the order of the apex court. He went on to add that 1,700 acres of PR land was occupied under residential use while 400 to 500 acres was under the control of government departments. PR Directorate of Property and Land claimed that 14,000 acres of PR land had been leased out.

Former federal minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid informed the court that PR owned 187,000 acres of land in total, out of which 37,000 acres accounted for agricultural land in Multan, Lodhran and Rahim Yar Khan. Rashid pointed out that if PR sold a few of its properties in Karachi, it would no longer need funding from the government.

The court noted that corruption in PR had exceeded all comprehendible limits while the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is only scraping the surface of issues plaguing the organisation. The chief justice said even though the Railways’ minister and secretary’s names have been taken in the case, no action has been initiated against them.

“Don’t think we are unaware,” the chief justice told the NAB prosecutor. The court also asked NAB chairman to initiate action against PR officers who leased 150 acres of PR land to Royal Palm Gulf Club in Lahore.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 14th, 2012.

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