AIRLINK 72.59 Increased By ▲ 3.39 (4.9%)
BOP 4.99 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (1.84%)
CNERGY 4.29 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.7%)
DFML 31.71 Increased By ▲ 0.46 (1.47%)
DGKC 80.90 Increased By ▲ 3.65 (4.72%)
FCCL 21.42 Increased By ▲ 1.42 (7.1%)
FFBL 35.19 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (0.54%)
FFL 9.33 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.3%)
GGL 9.82 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.2%)
HBL 112.40 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-0.32%)
HUBC 136.50 Increased By ▲ 3.46 (2.6%)
HUMNL 7.14 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (2.73%)
KEL 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (2.84%)
KOSM 4.35 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (2.35%)
MLCF 37.67 Increased By ▲ 1.07 (2.92%)
OGDC 137.75 Increased By ▲ 4.88 (3.67%)
PAEL 23.41 Increased By ▲ 0.77 (3.4%)
PIAA 24.55 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (1.45%)
PIBTL 6.63 Increased By ▲ 0.17 (2.63%)
PPL 125.05 Increased By ▲ 8.75 (7.52%)
PRL 26.99 Increased By ▲ 1.09 (4.21%)
PTC 13.32 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.83%)
SEARL 52.70 Increased By ▲ 0.70 (1.35%)
SNGP 70.80 Increased By ▲ 3.20 (4.73%)
SSGC 10.54 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 8.33 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.6%)
TPLP 10.95 Increased By ▲ 0.15 (1.39%)
TRG 60.60 Increased By ▲ 1.31 (2.21%)
UNITY 25.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.12%)
WTL 1.28 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.79%)
BR100 7,566 Increased By 157.7 (2.13%)
BR30 24,786 Increased By 749.4 (3.12%)
KSE100 71,902 Increased By 1235.2 (1.75%)
KSE30 23,595 Increased By 371 (1.6%)

ISLAMABAD: A contempt petition was filed in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the Capital Development Authority (CDA) chairman and others, for not complying with the court's order to seal a commercial building of Pakistan Navy on Rawal Lake.

Zeenat has filed a petition through her advocate, Zainab Janjua, and contended that Pakistan Navy has illegally constructed a building on the Rawal Lake, and has denied access to the general public.

She asserted that the illegal occupation of land, construction of a building thereon, and denial of access to a public place is in violation of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

In her contempt petition, she cited secretary Cabinet Division, chairman CDA, and the Chief of Naval Staff as respondents.

She requested the court that contempt proceedings be initiated against the respondents under sections 3 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read together with Article 204 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also prayed before the court that the respondents be directed to comply with the order of this court dated July 23rd in letter and spirit.

She stated that the IHC single bench noted in his order, "The statement made on behalf of the regulator i.e. the Capital Development Authority is indeed alarming and raises serious questions regarding status of rule of law and disregard for protecting an environmentally sensitive area from harm. The Capital Development Authority appears to have failed in its statutory duty or it is complacent. It is noted that no one can be allowed to break the law. No one is above the law and every citizen has to be treated equally."

The petitioner said that the IHC had observed that it had become a norm for the CDA and other agencies to promptly take action against the common citizens, while the privileged and elites were being treated differently.

She further said Justice Athar had maintained that this was unacceptable for a democratic polity, governed under a Constitution, which guaranteed fundamental rights.

She adopted that the court had ordered, "It is, therefore, ordered that till the next date fixed, the Federal Government, through the Secretary Cabinet, and the Chairman, Capital Development Authority shall seal the premises."

Zeenat continued that the IHC bench had also ordered, "The Secretary, Cabinet Division is directed to place the matter before the Federal Cabinet in its next meeting for consideration because the enforced laws are not being implemented and that enforcement has been confined to common citizens. This different treatment is unacceptable and has become a matter of routine in the past one decade."

She stated that on 4 August, the petitioner along with her husband visited the PN Sailing Club and found the gate of the Club was open, and the petitioner also took photographs of the unsealed gate and parking lot.

The petitioner said that she also visited Member Planning of CDA and informed him that the PN Sailing Club had not been sealed by the CDA despite the court's order. "The Member Planning answered evasively by stating that the PN Sailing Club has been sealed."

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020

Comments

Comments are closed.