ISLAMABAD: Two petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court seeking contempt proceedings against perceived violation of the June 11 order of the court to relocate restaurants, including Monal, out of the Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP) area within three months.

Moved through Advocate Umer Ijaz Gillani, the first petition was filed by a citizen, Bilal Haque, and the second by Rina Saeed Khan, highlighting her removal as the chairperson of Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB).

The petitions were moved under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Order 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 as well as sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003.

The petition moved by Mr Haque pleaded that private businessmen operating restaurants inside the MNHP - the proprietors of Monal and La Montana - had volunteered vacating the facilities in three months, insisting that it would take three months for dismantling the structures.

So far, not a brick has been removed by operators of Monal and La Montana which clearly shows lack of intention to obey court order, says petitioner

“But almost two months down the lane, unfortunately, the process of dismantling of the commercial restaurants inside the national park has yet to start. Not a brick has been removed by the respondents, which clearly shows a lack of intention to obey the court order,” the petition stated.

“Instead of dismantling the restaurants, the respondents namely Secretary Cabinet Kamran Ali Afzal, Interior Secretary Aftab Durrani, Principle Secretary to Prime Minister Asad Rehman Gillani, Capital Development Authority (CDA) Chairman Chaudhry Mohammad Ali Ranndhawa etc., seem to be focused on doing the very opposite,” the petition alleged.

“They are dismantling IWMB, the institution which played a cardinal role in championing the cause of wildlife protection over the last few years,” it alleged.

The petition regretted that on July 19, 2024, the respondents removed an independent expert, Rina Saeed Khan, from the post of the IWMB chairperson and replaced her with the additional secretary of the Ministry of Climate Change.

It said this move was legally questionable since it violated the duty of public officials to disclose sound reasons for all administrative decisions arising out of Article 4 and Section 24A of the General Clauses Act.

They also violated the duty of public officials to provide an opportunity of hearing to anyone aggrieved of their orders and above all it violated the object and purpose of the very provision which it relies upon: Section 4.

The petition regretted that about a fortnight after the removal of the chairperson IWMB, the administrative control over the board was taken away from the Ministry of Climate Change and handed over to the Ministry of Interior.

This was done through a letter dated Aug 2, 2024, issued by the Prime Minster Office.

“Interesting, the board, its chairperson and its members are not even copied on this notification which shows how whimsically and non-transparently the respondents were operating,” the petition alleged.

It alleged that, historically, there had been friction between IWMB and the interior ministry on account of CDA falling within the control of the latter.

The petition alleged that the CDA had been at the forefront of real-estate and commercial development in MHNP – acts not only detrimental to the environment, but also the flora and fauna. CDA has spearheaded the construction of roads in the MHNP along with granting licences to commercial establishments in the national park area. As a result, the primary purpose of MHNP, i.e. the protection and preservation of the flora and fauna, was squandered at CDA’s behest, the petition alleged.

“A series of banners were erected outside the National Assembly recently advertising a new housing scheme in MHNP. The fact that these banners were put up at possibly the most highly policed locality in the country means that either the respondents were complicit in violation of the court’s order regarding the preservation of the national park or they were negligent in their duty.”

The Supreme Court was clear in its direction that the MHNP was to be preserved for the protection of the wildlife and for educational purposes. It is highly contemptuous that instead of striving towards the protection of the wildlife, the respondents are either complicit in or indifferent towards the construction of a major housing society in the MHNP.

The petition said recently CDA unilaterally launched a plantation drive inside the national park. This entire process was carried out without any consultation with IWMB – the legal custodian of the park – and without any independent advice from botanical experts.

This consultation process was not only the requirement of the law but was essential to ensure that only indigenous species suitable to the locality are planted.

Published in Dawn, August 9th, 2024