Govt told to justify decision against changing status of UCs

Karachi
The Sindh High Court sought an explanation on Tuesday, a day after two opposition political parties challenged a joint report in which the provincial election commissioner and the local government secretary said they had reached an understanding not to change the status of 23 local bodies constituencies in 11 districts.
In a petition, Syed Zafar Ali Shah, Jam Shabbir and Chaudhry Basharat Mehmood, representatives of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Muslim League-Functional, questioned the alleged agreement between the secretary and the election commissioner wherein they decided not to change the status of local constituencies despite a court order in a delimitation case.
Their counsel, Syed Mureed Ali Shah, submitted that the election authorities had informed the court on October 19 that issues over the delimitation of some union councils had been amicably resolved and polls in only 11 districts would be rescheduled due to the newly created union councils.
He said the ECP and the government placed on record a statement showing councils/constituencies on which there was an alleged understanding between the local government department and the election commissioner not to change the status of the following constituencies: (i) TC Pannu Akil of Sukkur district, (ii) MC Mirpur Mathelo and TC Daharki of Ghotki district, (iii) MC Nawabshah and TC Daur of Nawabshah district now SBZ, (iv) TC Halani, TC Khanwahan, TC Dabhro, TC Mithiani, TC Mohabat Dero Jatoi and TC Bhoriti of Naushahro Feroze district, (v) MC Shahdadpur, TC Jam Nawaz Ali and TC Jatia of Sanghar district, (vi) Union Councils in Taluka Hussain Bux Mari, UC Mir Aachan and MC Shujaabad of Mirpurkhas district, (vii) adjustments to various dehs in six union councils of District Council of Tharparkar district, (viii) TC Husri, MC Qasimabad, UC 54 & UC 55 in HMC of Hyderabad district, (ix) MC Tando Allahyar of Tando Allahyar district, (x) UC Marho Jabal of Jamshoro district and (xi) Union councils in Malir district, and disagreement between Respondent No.3 and Respondents No.1 and 2 over the constituencies in (i) TC Piryaloi and TC Karoondi of Khairpur district, (ii) MC Tando Adam of Sanghar district, (iii) UC Phullahdyoon & TC Naukot of Mirpurkhas district, (iv) MC Mithi of Tharparkar district, (v) MC Tando Jam of Hyderabad district and (vi) TC Sann & TC Manjhand of Jamshoro distrct.
The counsel said the understanding was illegal and amounted to reviewing the court order issued on September 18 by the SHC on the delimitation of local constituencies related to rural and urban issues.
He submitted that the respondents had committed a fraud by collusively filing a petition on behalf of the local government secretary who did not implead the petitioner and other aggrieved persons as respondents and intentionally and deliberately did not invite aggrieved persons for consultation or offer a hearing opportunity.
He said the respondents filed the report with malafide intentions and later with ulterior motives withdrew the petition from the high court.
The counsel said the local government secretary in a malafide, arbitrary and whimsical manner had been creating, constituting, reconstituting a new tapedar circle, a supervisory tapedar circle, union councils, town committees, union committees, municipal committees, talukas, sub-divisions, districts and divisions and altering the boundary limits thereof under the garb of Section 6 of the Land Revenue Act and Section 10 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013.
He further alleged that this exercise was being undertaken by the secretary intentionally and solely to manipulate the revenue boundaries as well as declaring rural areas into urban and annexed with any council of an urban area or vice versa in order to achieve their nefarious political gain.
He requested the court to declare that the alleged agreement was completely unconstitutional and in violation of court orders.
The court was also requested to issue a writ directing the respondents to implement the court order of September 18 forthwith by issuing a notification to that effect, and suspend the operation of the impugned alleged agreement/report.
After a preliminary hearing of the petition, the court issued notices to the advocate general, the local government secretary and the election commissioner, directing them to file comments on the petition by October 29.