The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday issued notices to the Sindh inspector general of police (IGP), Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) and others on a petition of former president Dr Arif Alvi’s wife Samina Alvi and son Awab Alvi against the SBCA’s action of sealing of their clinic.
The petitioners had challenged the SBCA’s action with regard to sealing of their dental hospital that was functioning for over three decades in the Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing Society (SMCHS) area.
Their counsel Ali Tahir said that officials of the SBCA without any prior notice sealed the premises of the clinic unlawfully without any due process of the law. He submitted that sealing of the health facility occurred in the absence of any legitimate cause or compliance with statutory procedures.
The counsel submitted that the action of the respondents was politically motivated as the former president and his son were well known for their affiliation with the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which had been under duress over past two years with its leaders and supporters being targeted and harassed.
He submitted that sealing of the premises came after a press conference of Dr Alvi in which he condemned oppressive actions of the government. The counsel submitted that sealing of the hospital was another instance of ongoing victimisation of the PTI and its affiliated persons.
He stated that no prior notice had been served by the SBCA and unlawful sealing of the health facility’s premises was nothing but a blatant violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights enshrined under the Article 10 A of the Constitution.
The high court was requested to declare the sealing of the subject premises in SMCHS as illegal and restore the health facility to its original position. The counsel also sought an injunction against harassment or taking any unlawful action against the petitioners or their property.
A division bench of the high court headed by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar after the preliminary hearing of the petition questioned its maintainability and observed that alternative remedy was available to the petitioners under the section 16 of the SBCA law and they may approach before the relevant forum for redress of their grievances.
The SHC observed that if the appeal was filed, the same shall be decided within one month from the date of filing of that appeal. The bench directed the counsel to satisfy the court about the maintainability of the petition, however, as indulgence, it issued notices to the SBCA, IGP and others calling their comments on October 14.