The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) and others to take action against the illegal Bachat Bazaars that are being operated on amenity plots in District Korangi as well as rickshaw stands on public roads causing nuisance and traffic hazards.
The direction came on a petition of Tanveer Ahmed, who sought action against illegal Bachat Bazaars on amenity plots in Korangi and unauthorised rickshaw stands on roads causing traffic hazards.
The petitioner said that illegal Bachat Bazaars are being operated on various amenity plots situated in Korangi No. 3, Korangi No. 3½ and Korangi No. 5 with the connivance of police officials and the district administration.
He said that the authorities concerned are not taking action against the persons involved in operating the illegal Bachat Bazaars despite repeated complaints made to them.
He added that the illegal Bachat Bazaars and rickshaw stands are causing nuisance and traffic hazards, and requested the court to direct the district administration to take action against the unscrupulous elements.
After the preliminary hearing of the petition, an SHC division bench headed by Chief Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi issued notices to the KMC, the Korangi district administration and others, and told them to submit their comments.
In the meantime the bench directed the official respondents to look into the matter, and if they find that illegal and unauthorised Bachat Bazaars are being operated on amenity plots and rickshaw stands on public roads are causing nuisance and traffic hazards, action may be taken against such unscrupulous elements, then a compliance report be submitted on the next date of hearing.
Hospital plea
The SHC also disposed of a petition of a private hospital against a private complaint when the Sindh Health Care Commission (SHCC) informed the court that no inquiry is pending against the private hospital.
The Modern Hospital said in their petition that a private person had filed a complaint against the hospital management with the SHCC regarding the disappearance of a baby, which was mala fide.
The petitioner said the complaint was based of an ultrasound report that had two scientific opinions, and it was filed because the complainant’s wife did not deliver twins during the operation. The hospital management had requested the court to direct the SHCC to decide the complaint within 10 days.
The SHCC informed the court that no complaint had been filed with them nor any adverse action was being taken against the hospital administration. The counsel of the petitioner expressed satisfaction over the statement and desired to withdraw the petition, following which the court disposed of the petition.
