ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Monday sought a report from the federal and Balochistan governments about the implementation of Justice Qazi Faez Isa inquiry report on the Quetta blast.

On August 8, 2016, in the tragic incident in Quetta, 73 people, majority of them lawyers, had been killed and over 104 seriously injured.

Former chief justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali had taken suo motu notice of the incident on a note of the registrar containing details of the Quetta bomb blast.

The three-judge bench, headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Dost Muhammad Khan and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, which heard the case said it wanted to see the governments’ point of view on the recommendations given in the Justice Qazi inquiry report .

The bench disposed of matters regarding endowment funds, a housing scheme and jobs to the heirs of the Quetta blast victims as the Balochistan government took the plea that the endowment fund has been set up and the land acquired for a housing scheme for the families of the lawyers killed in the blast.

The court noted the matter regarding the endowment funds, the housing scheme and the provision of jobs to the family members of the deceased were moving in the right direction, so there was no need to keep them pending.

“The issues about the housing society and the endowment funds are at the final stage. The Balochistan government seems to be active in solving the lawyers’ problems,” the bench said adding: “We appreciate the steps taken to redress the problems.”

Meanwhile, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa additional advocate general said there should be the same treatment for the affected people of the Mardan blast. However, Justice Khosa told him that in terrorism-related blasts, people from all walks of life are killed, so every incident could not be treated as similar to that of the Quetta blast.

During the hearing, a petitioner said no work has been done by the Balochistan government on a trauma centre project.

Justice Khosa said they could not see appointments in hospitals. “We can issue directions but, cannot force anyone,” he said, adding the relevant authorities should have issued notices to the doctors who were not obeying their orders. The case was adjourned until January 8.