KARACHI, Sept 25: The Sindh High Court directed the provincial and city governments and the Sindh Police to duly empower and equip the CDGK police station to enable it serve the purpose it was created for by a home department notification issued in 2006.

The order was passed in several petitions against illegal and unauthorized constructions wherein the respondent Karachi Building Control Authority expressed its inability to comply with court orders because of the absence of police assistance and refusal of the public utilities and the property registration authorities to co-operate in ensuring adherence to the provisions of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, the Environmental Protection Act, the Sindh Local Government Ordinance and the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations of 2002.

A division bench comprising Justices Munib Ahmed Khan and Rana Mohammad Shamim asked the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, the Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation and the Sui Sothern Gas Company to sanction connections to the new buildings with the KBCA approval. The registration authorities were told to register sub-leases in favour of the purchasers of shops and apartments in the newly-constructed buildings only if the builder-developer produced a no-objection or completion or occupancy certificate from the KBCA.

The home and police departments were ordered to provide a lock-up, a malkhana and a strong room at the police station. The strength of the staff at the station would be raised to the level of a normal police station. The city district government would be responsible for providing mobile vans.

The proceedings were attended by the capital city police officer, the KWSB managing director, the chief controller of buildings. The KBCA was represented by Advocate Shahid Jamil Khan, the board of revenue by Advocate M. Ahmed Pirzada, the KESC by Advocate Mohammad Ali Mazhar and the SSGC by Advocate Iqbal.

Advocate-General Mohammad Yusuf Leghari also entered appearance to oppose the upgrade of the CDG police station. He supported the police stance but stopped short of challenging the validity of the 2006 notification creating the police station. The AG said the police station was created under the SLGO and should have no power to register first information reports or investigate offences. The offences under the SLGO were non-cognizable. He said the measures being ordered by the bench were not sought by he petitioners and that the matter had not been declared public interest litigation.

Advocate Pirzada said there was no provision in the Registration Act obliging the registrars to seek an approval from the KBCA. The SSGC counsel said the Natural Gas Rules required the company to provide a connection to the occupant without going into the question of ownership.

The bench observed that matters involving enforcement of civic, traffic and environmental laws were always treated as public interest litigation by the superior courts and that the relief could be moulded to provide an effective remedy. It was only ordering due implementation of a notification issued two years earlier.

The petitions were being disposed by a short common order and a detailed order would take care of the legal implications and repercussions involved in the matter. It asked the AG and other counsel, including Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Legal) Anwar Subhani, to submit their objections or proposals in writing.

The KBCA counsel said the law officers were, in fact, challenging the very creation of the police station without appearing to impugn the 2006 home department notification. The Railway and KESC police stations had also been set up under special laws and for specified purpose but that did not mean they could not exercise power under the criminal procedure code and register an FIR and investigate offences. Not all offences under the SBCO and SLGO were non-cognizable, he argued, citing the relevant sections. He said if the KBCA had to have the duty of demolishing unauthorized structures, it must have adequate magisterial and police powers.

Notice suspended

Justice Gulzar Ahmed of the Sindh High Court suspended on Thursday a notice served by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on a brokerage concern.

The SECP had ordered the Central Depository Company to suspend the CDC participant status of M/s Al Mal Securities. The brokerage company challenged the notice as unlawful and sought damages from the SECP and the CDC through Advocate Ziaul Haq Makhdoom. Issuing notices to the SECP, the CDC and the Karachi Stock Exchange for October 15, the court suspended the operation of the impugned notice in the meantime.

Fee upheld

An appellate bench of the Sindh High Court upheld the imposition of the infrastructure fee on import and export consignments with effect from December 2006.

The fee was first levied in 1994 and the bench comprising Justices Mrs Qaiser Iqbal and Khalid Ali Z. Qazi ruled that the 1994 and subsequent enactments imposing the cess were invalid. A number of intra-court appeals were moved by importers and exporters against Justice Mushir Alam’s judgment upholding the levy. Advocates Munib Akhtar and Dr Mohammad Farogh Naseem were among the lawyers who appeared for the appellants while Advocate Rasheed A. Akhund defended the impugned judgment as special counsel for the provincial government.The bench said in its 55-page judgment that any bank guarantee/security furnished under the invalid enactments from 1994 to 2006 stood discharged and were liable to be refunded. The guarantees and securities furnished after the Sindh Finance (Amendment) Act of December 28, 2006, were liable to be encashed. The court had earlier stayed encashment of the guarantees pending the proceedings. The bench suspended the paragraphs dealing with the encashment of guarantees to enable the appellant concerns to prefer a second appeal if they so desired.

The fee was challenged by the importers and exporters as, they maintained, it was essentially a customs duty recoverable only by the federal government under the constitution. Then, they said there was no reasonable formula to calculate the fee and an across-the-board payment on the value of the goods was to be made irrespective of the load or distance covered.

The provincial government said the huge export and import consignment put an extra burden on the province’s infrastructure, particularly the road network. A massive amount had to be spent on the development and maintenance of infrastructure to facilitate the movement of import and export consignments. It was well within the purview of the provincial legislature to impose a tax to cover the additional expenditure on services and wear and tear.

The bench observed that unlike the previous enactment, the 2006 amendment act provided a yardstick for calculating the fee and took away the element of arbitrariness from the imposition. The fee calculation formula envisaged by the 2006 amendment duly factored in the weight of the goods transported and also the distance covered by the carriers.