LHC summons Rawalpindi administration on August 29

Rawalpindi

Justice Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi of the Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi Bench here Thursday directed heads of city administration to appear in person before the court on Monday, August 29 and submit reply as to what they did for implementing court orders dated May 26 regarding removal of encroachments from the city.

LHC bench has directed city heads to appear after a petitioner, Muhammad Anwar Dar, filed a contempt of court petition with the court while contending that the city administration virtually did not take any step forward for addressing issues in the city.

Petitioner, in his petition under article 204 of the constitution, has claimed that the city administration has not implemented court orders dated May 26 regarding removal of encroachments from street, bazaar and nullahs of the city, to clear road passages from odd and substandard speed breakers and to remove illegal car parking.

Petitioner has cited Azmat Mehmood Director General Rawalpindi Development Authority (RDA), District Coordination Officer (DCO) Talat Mehmood Gondal, Dr Saima Shah Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rawalpindi Cantonment Board (RCB), CEO Chaklala Cantonment Rana Rafique, Nazia Perveen administrator Rawal Town, Arif Raheem administrator Potohar Town as respondents.

Petitioner adopted that the LHC bench in its judgment had directed city administration to clear the city roads and nullahs from encroachments but it did paid no heed that is against norms of law and justice.

On June 2, LHC bench had disposed of the petition while directing the city administration “to continue with the campaign recently launched under direction of this court, which otherwise is to be undertaken under the relevant provisions regulating the business-affairs of such authorities”.

Petitioner said that the entire campaign remain active for few days and thereafter it was stopped and encroachers were allowed to retake the areas already cleared under directions from this court. 

The petitioner said that the acts of respondents, not complying with the court orders amounts to contempt of court and they may be proceeded accordingly.