PESHAWAR: A Peshawar High Court bench on Thursday declared
the Peshawar Bus Rapid Transit project in accordance with the law but
expressed dissatisfaction with the alternative traffic plan of the
traffic police in the capital city for the provincial government’s
multibillion rupees initiative.
The development came as
Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Syed Afsar Shah disposed of two
petitions challenging the BRT project on multiple grounds, with certain
observations and directives for the relevant officials, including the
provincial inspector general of police and Environmental Protection
Agency director general.
The bench had reserved judgment
on the petitions on Nov 23 after hearing arguments of all parties for
many days. One petition was jointly filed by former provincial minister
Amanullah Haqqani and local resident Wali Khan and the other by
environmentalist Abid Zareef.
Voices dissatisfaction with alternative traffic plan in Peshawar
Advocate Essa Khan argued for the first petitioners, whereas Abid Zareef appeared in person.
Provincial
advocate general Abdul Lateef Yousafzai represented the provincial
government and advocate Shumail Butt represented SGEC-Maqbool-Calsons
JV, the company, which has been awarded the contract of two of the
sections in the project.
Former attorney general Mohammad
Khursheed Khan, who was also made party to the petitions by the court
over his application, had also advanced arguments on different aspects
of the project.
In a detailed judgment, the bench
overruled the petitioners’ objection that the project was a violation of
the KP Local Government Act as under that law, the district government
had the authority to launch a mass transit project.
It
ruled that the action of carrying out Peshawar Sustainable Bus Rapid
Transit Corridor Project (BRT) under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Mass
Transit Act, 2016, is with lawful authority.
“The
provision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Urban Mass Transit Act, 2016 is neither
in violation of Article 140-A of the Constitution nor irreconcilably
contradicts the provision of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government
Act, 2013,” the bench ruled.
The court observed that the
alternative traffic plan, as presented by Peshawar SP (traffic) Riaz
Ahmad was not on a par with what was warranted in view of the magnitude
and scope of works under the project.
It added that the
DIG (traffic) was stated to be on a course and had not relinquished his
charge and therefore, the inspector general of police (IGP) was to
ensure that the charge of the DIG (traffic) was immediately assigned to a
responsible officer, who might personally supervise the alternative
traffic plan.
The bench directed the DIG (traffic) and
commanding officer of the Military Police of Cantonment, Peshawar, to
streamline alternative traffic plan and ensure that senior officers are
to personally supervise all the critical check points during the rush
hours for the smooth flow of traffic and convenience of the public. It
asked the DIG (traffic) and commanding officer of the Military Police of
Peshawar cantonment to submit the joint reports about the alternative
traffic plan on a fortnightly basis to the high court’s human rights
cell.
About objection raised against project manager of
the BRT Project Implementation Unit Aminuddin that he is facing certain
charges of corruption, the bench directed him not to be involved in any
manner whatsoever regarding the affairs of the project pending trial
before the accountability court in Peshawar.
The bench
added that during the interim period the Peshawar Development Authority
director general was to personally perform the functions of Project
Director of the Project.
About the environmental effect
of the Project, the bench ruled that the brief report submitted and oral
submissions of the EPA’s DG clearly demonstrate that, prima facie, the
prescribed requirements for rendering EIA (Environmental Impact
Assessment), as provided under Section 13 of the EPA Act of 2014, have
been complied with.
“The only issue which irks the Court
is that the EIA approval of the Project granted by the Director
General, EPA is conditional, which warrants to be periodically
considered and extended until its final approval. In the interim period,
the worthy Director General, EPA should periodically consider the
circumstances highlighted in the EIA, and if the same are found in
order, only then the EIA approval be extended.” The court ruled that
granting a conditional approval would not absolve the EPA’s DG from his
legal duty to ensure that the project fulfils and qualifies the
prescribed environmental standards under the law.
The
bench directed that the conditional EIA (Environmental Impact
Assessment) approval granted by the EPA’s DG under Section 13 of the KP
Environmental Protection Act, 2014, requires to be finalised.
“The
worthy Director General EPA shall fortnightly consider the conditions
highlighted in the EIA report, and thereafter, if found in order, to
extend the same till its final approval,” the court ruled.
The
petitioners had also contended that the technical, financial,
supervisory and executing capacity of the provincial government to carry
out the project was lacking, hence would lead to disaster. However, the
bench did not give any findings on that objection.
“Findings
on issues relating to technical and financial aspects of any project,
much so of a project which is highly specialised requiring engineering
and financial expertise, such as the present Project, ought not to be
passed by a Constitutional Court. More so, when the assertions of the
petitioners on the factual aspect of the Project are vehemently disputed
by the Provincial Government.
“Accordingly, this Court
would not like to enter into such controversies and pass any findings on
technical and financial viability of the Project,” it ruled. The AG had
told the court that the total route envisaged in the project was 26
kms, which was divided in to three sections, and the contractors for
each section was finally selected by the Asian development Bank through
international competitive biddings.
