IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Present:

Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui

C.P.No. D - 4057 of 2016

Abdul Latif Narejo….……………....……………...…………………..Petitioner

Versus

Director General SBCA and 04 others…………...…………….Respondents

C.P.No. D - 7073 of 2016

Ali Abdul Razzaq and another....…….………...…………………..Petitioners

Versus

Province of Sindh and 02 others……..…………...…………….Respondents

Date of Hearing : 24.01.2017

Mr. Shamshad Ali Qureshi, advocate

Mr. Zaheer-ul-Hasan Minhas, advocate

Mr. Sirtaj Malkani, advocate for SBCA

J U D G M E N T

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The petitioner (CP 4057 of 2016) is residing in Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Malir, Karachi. The respondents No. 3 & 4 have raised illegal construction in a plot adjacent to the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner had prayed for the demolition of their illegal and unauthorized construction situated at Plot No. C-1 and C-3, Phase-I, Gulshan-e-Hadeed, Malir, Karachi.

2. The instant petition was by consent disposed of vide order dated 18-11-2016 with the following observation.

"Respondent No. 3 may apply to SBCA for regularization latest by 30-11-2016 if he has not filed any such application earlier. The said application shall be decided without fail by SBCA latest by 10-12-2016 strictly in accordance with the law and after hearing all concerned. If no such application is filed within the stipulated period or the same is rejected by SBCA, the entire impugned construction shall be removed/ demolished by SBCA latest by 31-12-2016 strictly in accordance with law. Till such time no further construction shall be raised by respondent No. 3."

3. Later on, respondent No. 3 filed a contempt application against SBCA for non-complying the opposite directions. On such application, subject to the maintainability of the instant contempt application, notice to alleged contemnor was issued. The alleged contemnor appeared and filed his interim compliance report in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him, but he admitted in a written report that an application for regularization was received through TCS in response of which, the respondent No. 3 was intimated that the application is required to be filed at the counter. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the respondent No. 3 tried to present his application for regularization at the counter, but the same was not accepted; therefore, it was sent through TCS. The learned counsel for SBCA submitted that all the applications are entertained at the counter setup in the office of SBCA provided the application is produced after completing all formalities.

4. We are of the view that the order dated 18-11-2016 was passed with the consent of all the parties present before the court, therefore, the respondent No. 3 has to follow the same in letter and spirit. It is mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Interim Compliance Report filed on behalf of alleged contemnor/SBCA that the application through TCS was received on 05-01-2017. From the fact, it is clear that the respondent No. 3 has tried to file his application, not within the stipulated time as mentioned in the order referred above. It is the duty of the respondent No. 3 that he had to approach the concerned office of SBCA immediately after passing of the aforesaid order and if he was feeling any difficulty then he had to approach this Court before the cut-off date and not afterwards with a contempt application.

5. The respondent No. 3 has also filed another petition bearing C.P.No.D-7073 of 2016 in which he has sought directions to SBCA for regularization of the subject illegal and unauthorized structure. Since both the matters pertain to same property; therefore, the said petition is also tagged with the instant disposed of the petition. The order passed in the disposed of petition i.e. C.P. No.D-4057 of 2016 dated 18-11-2016 has already provided an opportunity to the respondent No. 3 (Petitioner of C.P. No.D-7073/2016) which could not be availed. However, as an indulgence, we provide another opportunity to the respondent No. 3 (Petitioner of C.P.No.D-7073/2016) and direct him to submit his application for regularization of his building plan and SBCA is directed to entertain his application as per law. It is the complaint of respondent No. 3 that his application was not accepted at the counter, therefore, he had to send the same through TCS. The concerned officials of SBCA are directed to make sure that the respondent No. 3 may not face any difficulty in presenting his application. The respondent No. 3 is required to file his application after completing all the requisite formalities latest by 29-04-2017 and if SBCA receives the application then they have an obligation to process the same within a period of 30 days in accordance with law. If the respondent No. 3 could not present his application up to 29-04-2017 or if presented and after scrutiny, the same is rejected, SBCA shall have to act according to law for compliance of the order dated 18-11-2016 immediately and submit the compliance report to the MIT of this Court. With these observations, the instant contempt application as well as C.P.No.D-7073 of 2016 are disposed of with no order as to cost.

JUDGE

JUDGE