DHA opposition to flyover project is blackmail, SHC told

[Salman]

KARACHI: The Bahria Town on Thursday submitted in the Sindh High Court that the project of a flyover and two underpasses in Clifton was being executed in the public interest and its opposition by the Defence Housing Authority was aimed at blackmailing the real estate tycoon.

A two-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Maqbool Baqar was seized with the hearing of a lawsuit filed by the DHA against the construction of a flyover and two underpasses near the shrine of Abdullah Shah Ghazi in Clifton by the Bahria Town.

On Thursday, Chaudhry Zain Malik, a director of the real estate concern, filed his reply to the notice issued in a contempt of court application against the Bahria Town for flouting court’s order. He said that the project was designed keeping in view the traffic issues in the public interest and it was being executed in accordance with the laws.

The Bahria Town director said that the real estate concern had also got the environmental assessment of the project from the relevant authorities. He said that the Rs1 billion project was within the jurisdiction of the KMC and the DHA had nothing to do with it. The Bahria Town director said that it was a wrong impression that the project was disputed by the public. He alleged that the DHA was intervening in the matter for its own gains. He also ruled out the impression that the project was a threat to historical spots and Bagh Ibne Qasim in the area.

The defendant denied that work on the project was in progress and claimed that construction activities were duly stopped on the orders of the high court. He said that the interim order restraining the construction work was causing hardship to the people.

However, the counsel for the plaintiff argued that the construction on the project was still in progress.

The bench extended its restraining order till April 17 when the matter would be taken up again.

The DHA, represented by Advocate Naeem Iqbal Malik, stated in the lawsuit that the Bahria Town in 2010 had announced one of its projects – Bahria Town Icon Project – a 68-storey building housing several shopping malls, hotel, cinema and other facilities. He said the huge project was initiated without taking into consideration its adverse environmental effect. The plaintiff said that the project was located at the hub of 26th Commercial Street and Shahrah-i-Firdousi that had predominant hustle and bustle with traffic plying round the clock. He said that the defendant construction company in March suddenly closed a part of Shahrah-i-Firdousi towards Bilawal Chowrangi and junction of the A.T. Naqvi roundabout without taking into consideration the fact that no road or street could be closed without prior approval of the authorities concerned. He said the impugned project, being entirely financed and executed by the defendant firm at the estimated cost of Rs1.8 billion, was required for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as only an Initial Environmental Assessment (IEE) had been submitted for the project so far. The KMC remained content with IEE, while under Section 12 of the Environmental Protection Act, 1997 read with Schedule-II, the project ought to have been evaluated on the basis of an EIA prior to the commencement of the construction work, the plaintiff argued. He said that the impugned project was being constructed without ascertaining correct traffic forecast rather the proponent of the project was relying upon a Traffic Impact Assessment Report compiled by the defendant firm. He said there would be a direct impact on 26th Street, leading to traffic congestion on E-Street. The plaintiff said major impact of the traffic, besides on 26th Street, would be followed by Sunset Boulevard and Khiyaban-i-Jami, as the two traffic sections were already major bottlenecks, with heavy vehicular and logistic traffic.Subsequently, he said, traffic from all sections/arteries would be diverted to the flyover route, indirectly affecting all arterial roads. He said that the flux of the thoroughfare traffic would resultantly be diverted to the residential area, ultimately causing serious noise and pollution in the residential blocks. He said the construction of the impugned project was continuing on avalanche speed and the project was likely to be completed within four months. He said that up ahead on the prime land were located the historical Jahangir Kothari Parade and the Shiri Ratneshwar Mahadev Temple, and Bagh Ibne Qasim beyond it. The plaintiff recalled that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan had earlier raised alarm about the danger to the 150-year-old temple situated very close to the project site. Besides, he said, the proposed underpasses and pedestrian bridges would encroach upon or damage the Bagh Ibne Qasim and the Jahangir Kothari parade (1919), which were protected under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994. He said that the project would adversely affect residents of the area, consulates and Clifton beach visitors, thus destroying the beauty of one of the few recreation spots available to the people.

The plaintiff stated that the KMC, the proponent of the project, would be paying compensation for the damage caused to the civil structure in the locality and/or any incidental loss occurring during the construction of the impugned project out of public exchequer, resting no liability on the real estate firm, the major beneficiary of the impugned project. He asked the court to restrain the construction firm from carrying out any construction work on the flyover project until its environment impact assessment was done as required under the law.