مضمون کا ماخذ : میگا ملینز کی پیشن گوئی
Supreme Court reserves judgement over appeal against LHC verdict
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgement over the Punjab government’s appeal against the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) verdict against the Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project. Last year, a divisional bench of the LHC had restrained the government from pursuing the construction of any structure within a distance of 200 feet from […]
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its judgement over the Punjab government’s appeal against the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) verdict against the Orange Line Metro Train (OLMT) project.
Last year, a divisional bench of the LHC had restrained the government from pursuing the construction of any structure within a distance of 200 feet from 11 heritage sites.
The SC larger bench headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan had been hearing the appeals on daily basis.
Justice Khan observed that prima facie it appeared that NESPAK, the engineering consultancy, had its own vested interests in the project so the independence in making its opinion was compromised.
He observed that NESPAK report had not examined and monitored the aspect of heritage thoroughly, adding that seemingly the report had been made without any application of mind.
He, however, said the Archeology Department had not produced any document in black and white.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, another member of the bench, observed that there had to be a team of Archeology Department to monitor the vibration and effects of vibration daily while the NESPAK report was only confined to environmental aspect.
The appellant and expert architect Kamil Khan Mumtaz resumed his arguments, contending that no study had been conducted regarding the material used in the foundation of historic buildings.
He argued that NESPAK had compiled the report only on theoretical assessments.
Justice Khan in his remarks said that enough construction had been done on the project. He, however, asked as to whether any damage was caused to historical buildings during the construction process.
Mumtaz suggested that underground tracks could be constructed near heritage sites. He also quoted instance of Delhi, saying that the underground tracks were made in the Indian city in order to safeguard their historical buildings.
He claimed that NESPAK’s counsel Shahid Hamid had been in contact with Professor Dr Cunningham, member of commission which examined the project under the orders of the court. Hamid rebutted that the ‘so-called’ civil societies had not been aggrieved due to the project.
He said that the mere suggesting underground train was easy but practically it was impossible, adding that the vibration of electric train was less than the ordinary train.
Justice Ahsan said that the other side, the civil societies, had reservations if the construction touched the foundations of these historical buildings than these would collapse.
Advocate Hamid responded that the construction was being done by vibration-less road roller.
Justice Ahsan said that the respondent party had stated before the court that the study analysis of Moj Darya Darbar had not been done and the authorities were unaware about the foundations of Darya Darbar.
Khawaja Haris, representing LDA, contended that study analysis of Darbar’s structure was done, adding that a mosque and lawyers’ chambers were situated in front of Darbar while both these would be demolished under the plan and the surrounding area would be declared as buffer zone.
On the conclusion of arguments, the court sought a counter report from the provincial government on Kamil Mumtaz’s report. The court while giving these directions ruled that the judgement was reserved.
