KARACHI   -  The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday heard the Pak Sarzameen Party (PSP) petition against recently amended Sindh local government law.

A bench of the high court asked the lawyer of the PSP to present arguments over maintainability of the party’s challenge to the recently amended local government bill sent to the governor for approval. “How a legislative bill can be challenged in court,” Chief Justice Ahmed Ali Shaikh, who was heading the bench, questioned. How the government be made answerable over approval of a bill, the court further asked.

“Sindh government has passed the local bodies bill with malicious intention,” PSP counsel argued. “Where the bill stands now?” the bench asked.

The government has sent the bill to the governor for his approval, the counsel replied. The PSP in its petition sought a restraining order for the provincial authorities not to enact the legislation as an Act of law. While citing the Sindh chief minister, chief secretary, provincial assembly speaker and the Sindh local government minister and secretary as respondents, the petitioners argued that the bill was now pending for the approval with the governor of Sindh. Main opposition party in Sindh Assembly PTI has also filed a petition recently in the SHC challenging the Sindh local government bill.

SHC issues arrest warrant of SCBA deputy director in illegal construction case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday issued an arrest warrant of the Deputy Director South (DD) of the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) in an illegal construction case around the City Court in Karachi.

The court issued an arrest warrant against the surety bond worth Rs30,000. The court showed its displeasure after the SCBA DD (South) did not appear before the court despite the court summoning him. The petitioner pleaded that pillars were erected on his land adjacent to shop number three in Aziz Chamber. The petitioner prayed the court to order to vacate the compulsory open space of the chamber. The petitioner’s counsel Ghulam Qadir pleaded that SBCA has been violating the court order.