AIRLINK 73.00 Decreased By ▼ -2.16 (-2.87%)
BOP 5.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.83%)
CNERGY 4.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.82%)
DFML 28.55 Increased By ▲ 0.91 (3.29%)
DGKC 74.29 Increased By ▲ 2.29 (3.18%)
FCCL 20.35 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.3%)
FFBL 30.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.48%)
FFL 10.06 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.9%)
GGL 10.39 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.17%)
HBL 115.97 Increased By ▲ 0.97 (0.84%)
HUBC 132.20 Increased By ▲ 0.75 (0.57%)
HUMNL 6.68 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.77%)
KEL 4.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-4.05%)
KOSM 4.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-3.56%)
MLCF 38.54 Increased By ▲ 1.46 (3.94%)
OGDC 133.85 Decreased By ▼ -1.60 (-1.18%)
PAEL 23.83 Increased By ▲ 0.43 (1.84%)
PIAA 27.13 Decreased By ▼ -0.18 (-0.66%)
PIBTL 6.76 Increased By ▲ 0.16 (2.42%)
PPL 112.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.36 (-0.32%)
PRL 28.16 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-2.05%)
PTC 14.89 Decreased By ▼ -0.61 (-3.94%)
SEARL 56.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.91 (-1.59%)
SNGP 65.80 Decreased By ▼ -1.19 (-1.78%)
SSGC 11.01 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-1.43%)
TELE 9.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.12 (-1.31%)
TPLP 11.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.24%)
TRG 69.10 Decreased By ▼ -1.29 (-1.83%)
UNITY 23.71 Increased By ▲ 0.06 (0.25%)
WTL 1.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.75%)
BR100 7,434 Decreased By -20.9 (-0.28%)
BR30 24,206 Decreased By -44.4 (-0.18%)
KSE100 71,359 Decreased By -74.1 (-0.1%)
KSE30 23,567 Increased By 0.5 (0%)

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down the Sindh government’s plea to grant a stay against the Sindh High Court (SHC)’s order regarding the formation of committees to oversee the flood relief work.

A three-member judge bench, headed by Chief Justice (CJ) Umar Ata Bandial, hearing the appeal allowed the monitoring committee, headed by civil judges, to oversee the relief and rehabilitation of the flood-affected people. The bench, however, restrained the committee from intervention and control of the relief operation and directed them to submit the progress reports to the SHC.

The SHC Sukkur and Larkana benches had formed committees to monitor the relief and rehabilitation work for the flood victims.

The Sindh provincial government had challenged an interim order of the high court in the Supreme Court, which issued notices to the concerned parties.

The apex court directed the supervisory committees to continue working for the relief and rehabilitation of the flood victims while restraining the committees formed under the chairmanship of the civil judge from interfering and controlling the rehabilitation work of the flood victims.

“The natural disaster has affected the lives of people,” observed CJ Bandial.

“The Sindh government considers the formation of committees to be an interference in the relief operation on part of the executive,” the CJ remarked, “we shall serve notices to the parties of the case”.

“Suspend the SHC’s orders alongside the notice,” pleaded the Sindh Advocate General.

“The high court has issued the decision for the protection of fundamental rights,” responded Justice Mansoor Ali Shah.

“Restraining orders will be issued if it is deemed appropriate in the future,” added the SC judge.

The three-member bench headed by CJ Bandial has adjourned the hearing until next week.

It may further be noted that earlier in September an application had been filed with the SC seeking the provision of basic rights and assistance to the flood victims in Sindh.

The plea had requested the apex court to order the complete implementation of the decision on its 2011 suo motu notice related to floods.

The application had adopted the stance that floods during the current year affected nearly all the districts of Sindh and that the provincial government and the related departments had failed to make arrangements to protect people from the calamity.

It had further noted that no pre-emptive measures were in place despite a warning by the Meteorological Department and added that floodwater remained stagnant in several areas of the province.

The plea had recalled that the apex court had taken a suomotu notice on the floods in the year 2010 and issued orders to the then government.

The petitioner had maintained that the provision of basic rights was the responsibility of the government.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022

Comments

Comments are closed.