Three-member bench issues show-cause notices to federal finance and planning secretaries
Karachi
The Supreme Court issued show-cause notices to the federal secretaries of finance and planning and development on Thursday, telling them to explain why its directives for releasing funds for a Manchar Lake project were not complied with.
Hearing a suo moto case with regard to the contamination of water in Manchar Lake due to effluent from the Right Bank Outfall Drain, a three-member bench headed by Justice Amir Hani Muslim asked the chief secretary why the RBOD-I and III project could not be completed despite undertakings by both the federal and provincial governments that it would be completed by December 2016.
Chief Secretary Siddique Memon submitted that the federal government had not released the requisite funds for the completion of the project. He said 15 reverse osmosis plants had been installed for providing drinking water to the residents of areas around the lake.
The irrigation secretary said steps were taken to stop the contamination of water in Manchar Lake and freshwater of the Indus River was also included in the lake to reduce the contamination.
Private applicants, who were residents from areas around the lake, however disputed the statement of the irrigation secretary and submitted that RO plants were installed only in the Bobuk area instead of other surrounding areas of Manchar Lake.
They said the RO plants were not installed as per the need of the public at large, but it was on account of political influence that XEN had installed the plants in spite of complaints made to him. They said the plants went out of order for want of proper maintenance and it took them months to become functional again.
They also complained that waste was also coming from Balochistan and other sources into the lake.
The irrigation secretary submitted that he would visit the area and submit a report about the working of the RO plants.
The bench took exception to the awarding of a separate project by the provincial government for the construction of the RBOD and observed that such projects were issued for avoiding accountability.
It observed that awarding such projects separately instead of carrying out thorough department proceedings went unaccounted as far as the allocation of funds were concerned and at the same time the project director were being changed at regular intervals at the whim of the government.
The court inquired the irrigation secretary to justify why a separate project giving a separate identity had been introduced when it had to maintain work belonging to the irrigation department and under the law and rules of business. However, the irrigation secretary could not offer any plausible explanation.
The court confronted the project director with regard to the non-completion of the RBOD-II project and inquired him how much amount had been paid to the contractor and how much work had been executed.
The bench expressed its shock that the project director, who was appointed to execute the project, was unaware of even the location of Manchar Lake as he did not know the distance between Bobuk and the lake.
The court directed the chief secretary to either justify such projects to be executed independently or immediately order them to be taken over and executed by the departments as continuing such projects would cause the government heavy losses.
It granted time to the government to consult with the relevant quarters and justify such projects or immediately hand them over to the departments concerned and hold the irrigation secretary accountable.
The court observed that Wapda was directed to ensure that no waster or industrial effluent be drained into Manchar Lake either from Balochistan or from any other source.
It directed the Wapda chairman to appear and respond to the defiance which was being practised despite the court orders.
The bench adjourned the hearing of the case till August 30 and observed that in case the court was not satisfied with the explanation of the secretary of finance and planning and the Wapda chairman, they would face contempt of court proceedings.
