PCB, Gulberg Town officials fight over wall

Both sides accuse each other of violating orders of Lahore High Court.


Our Correspondent June 03, 2012

LAHORE:


Officials of the Gulberg Town Municipal Administration (TMA) and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) got into a fight on Saturday after the former again tore down a wall built in front of the PCB office at Gaddafi Stadium.


The TMA had torn down the wall earlier this month on the grounds that it was an illegal construction, after which the PCB took the matter to the Lahore High Court. Both sides argued that the other had violated the court’s orders.

PCB officials said that the court had passed an order allowing the PCB to rebuild the wall, and that was all it had done. The TMA said that the court had ordered the PCB not to do any “fresh construction”, which was what the wall constituted. On the complaint of the Gulberg town municipal officer (TMO), Gulberg police registered an FIR against PCB officials.

Round 2

Gulberg TMO Faisal Shehzad arrived at the PCB office on Saturday with several TMA personnel and began shooting a video of the wall on his mobile phone. PCB General Manager for Human Resources Javed Manj showed them a copy of the court order regarding the wall.

Shehzad maintained that the PCB was not allowed to rebuild the wall and it had violated the stay order. He then ordered workers to bring the wall down. PCB guards tried to stop them and a scuffle ensued. The fighting lasted around 10 minutes, before officials with better sense from both sides intervened. TMO Shehzad left the scene and brought the matter to the attention of District Coordination Officer Noorul Amin Mengal.

On the TMO’s complaint, a case was registered under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 186 (hindering a public official doing his duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Pakistan Penal Code against PCB officials at Gulberg police station.

The PCB spokesman said the Gulberg TMA’s actions were a “gross violation” of the court’s orders. He said that they had not done any “fresh construction”, but rebuilt the damaged portion of the wall, as the court had allowed them to. He said the wall had been built for security purposes.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 3rd, 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