HYDERABAD, Sept 7: The Hyderabad circuit bench of the Sindh High Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over working of the Pakistan Railways. It observed that the railway infrastructure was not in a good shape and posed serious risks to travellers.

The bench comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Mohammad Athar Saeed took up the petition of Raja Jawad Ali Sahar, challenging the levy of toll tax on the Kotri bridge by the Pakistan Railways.

The divisional superintendent of Pakistan Railways, Karachi, Mir Mohammad Khaskheli, was present after his bailable warrants were issued by the court on the previous date of hearing for his failure to come to the court.

The judges said they were perturbed over the fact that the Ran Patiani bridge, rebuilt by railways had been washed away on July 30 following heavy rains, had not yet been rebuilt.

The court wanted to know under what law the tax was being collected and what quantum of funds had been spent on the maintenance of the bridge.

It observed that tracks were not properly maintained and the second bridge that had been built only 10 to 15 years ago was not functioning while the one built by the British was still working.

The bench said that the people considered travelling in trains as insecure as compared to other countries despite the fact that the PR was the major mean of transportation of people.

It said that at various railway stations platform structure was around six feet below the stairs of railway coaches.

The court expressed concern over the collapse of Ran Patiani Bridge and asked the official who was responsible for it.

The judges told the railway officials that perhaps the PR did not realise miseries faced by travellers following the incident.

They said that while officials remained least concerned only lower grade employees would be taken to task as superior officers would still feel comfortable.

The court also asked the official why required facilities had not been provided to passengers at Zero Point.

Divisional superintendent Meer Mohammad Khaskheli said that he had just taken over the charge after his transfer from Quetta.

He said that an inquiry, ordered by the PR, was being conducted by the federal government inspector for railways, Imam Deen Bhatti.

He said that the report had not yet been finalised.

He said that the FWO had been entrusted the reconstruction work of Ran Patiani Bridge while both the diversion routes were in operation for up and down country rail traffic.

He said that the period of contract of toll tax of Kotri Bridge had been completed and new auction was yet to take place.

He said that tenders for Rs1.8 million were being floated for re-carpeting of roads over both the shoulders of bridge.

He informed that UIC-54 tracks were being laid from Karachi to upcountry by railway authorities while new coaches were being obtained as well.

He admitted that there were certain shortcomings and they were being addressed by the department.

He said that all kind of international facilities would be provided at Zero point railway station for Indian and Pakistani passengers.

Through his affidavit, he offered his unconditional apology for his absence in the court.

About tax collection, he said that the contractor was authorised to recovery toll tax under terms and conditions of the government and no complaint was received the contrary.

He said that a sum of Rs3,475,578 was spent on painting and Rs1,782,160 was yet to be spent on special repair for tender had been called.

He said that the PR received 50 per cent share while 50 per cent was given to the Sindh government and the contract was awarded for Rs15.1 million.

Respondent’s counsel Yousuf Leghari, advocate, sought time to go through documents given to him and requested the court to vacate the interim order, staying recovery of toll tax on the bridge.

He said that it was auctioned in June 2004 and new contract was to be given.

The court turned down his request and ordered that interim order would continue till September 28.

He argued that the recovery was being made under section 51(3)F of the Railways Act 1890.

Petitioner’s counsel Ayaz Latif Palijo interjected to draw the attention of the court that section 47 to 52 of the act stood omitted under the Railway Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002.

He pleaded the court to direct official respondents to take stern and immediate legal action to protect public interests and stop illegal extortion in the name of tax.