KARACHI, June 3: A division bench of the Sindh High Court comprising Justice Munib Ahmed Khan and Justice Syed Pir Ali Shah on Tuesday issued notices to the State Bank of Pakistan and two commercial banks for June 10 and their loan recovery departments on two separate petitions filed against alleged harassment by loan recovery officers.

The petitioner, Samina, through her counsel Sardar Sher Afzal Khan submitted that the United Bank and Standard Chartered Bank offered a loan facility, which she availed through credit cards. She made regular payments according to the procedure of banks but due to a financial crisis she failed to pay further dues.

Subsequently, she requested concession for time to enable her to arrange payments, but bank officials refused.

She submitted that recovery officers were threatening and sending teams to her residence who humiliated her family members. She appealed to the court to restrain the banks from harassing her.

The division bench while issuing notices to the respondents adjourned the matter till June 10.

The same bench, in another case, issued a notice to the Sindh Home Secretary, DIG Police Sukkur, Additional IG (Investigation) Sindh and SP Police (Ghotki) on a petition filed against re-investigation of a murder case, lodged against ex-minister of irrigation and power, Nadir Akmal Khan Leghari.

Mr Leghari filed a petition against police officials. He submitted that Additional IG Police via order addlIGP/reader/353-56 passed on May 10, 2008, directed SP Police Ghotki to reinvestigate incident of firing during elections of Feb 18, 2008 at Khoro Leghari in which one Shoaib Karim was killed and many others were injured.

The petitioner was nominated in an FIR registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, 337 of the PPC at Dad Leghari police station. He stated after submission of final challan on March 18, 2008, a committee comprising DIGP (Inv), SP (Inv) & DSP (Inv) was formed to probe the incident, Additional IG, in violation of Police Order 2002, issued an order of reinvestigation despite the fact that a committee was already investigating the said case.

He demanded that the reinvestigation order be declared void and the respondents be restrained from taking any coercive action.

Bridge case

Meanwhile, reviewing another case, the same bench issued a notice to the federal ministry and provincial environment protection, its secretary, DHA, KBCA, CDGK, Clifton Cantonment Board and others on a petition filed against construction of a flyover/bridge from Submarine Chowrangi to Khayaban-i-Tanzeem over main Gizri Road by residents of the area.

The petitioner, Salma Iqbal Chundrigar, and 12 other residents of DHA Phase-V said they were deprived of their legitimate right of being protected from nuisance, pollution, other natural corollaries of commercialization by the Defence Housing Authority in violation of the Environment Protection Act, 2002. They claimed that no prior notice was issued to the area residents regarding construction of a flyover/bridge.

They submitted that its construction would hamper their right to life and was in violation of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002.

They urged the court to declare the construction illegal, and restrain the authorities concerned from constructing the flyover bridge.

The matter has been adjourned to a date in office.

Car loan case

Justice Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi of the High Court of Sindh (SHC) on Tuesday disposed of a criminal application filed by a citizen advising him to file a constitutional petition.

Majid Ikram, who bought a car under a bank loan scheme, filed the application stating that the car was repossessed by officials of the bank three days before payment of the first instalment.

The applicant/owner moved court but no FIR was lodged in the first instance. A case was later registered only on a direction by an additional district judge, south.

The investigation officer in the case submitted a report favouring the bank against which the present criminal application was moved before the SHC.

After reviewing the case, the bench advised the applicant to file a constitutional petition so that the matter could be heard by a division bench.—PPI/APP