SHC moved against disappearance of parking plaza employee

Petitioner says her son-in-law, a computer operator at the CDGK Parking Plaza, was picked up on the day that two army personnel were shot dead in the area

Karachi

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday issued notices to IG Sindh, DG Rangers and others on a petition against alleged enforced disappearance of a computer operator of a parking plaza in Saddar.

Petitioner Rasheeda submitted that her son-in-law Mohammad Faheem, employed as a computer operator at a parking plaza, went missing on July 26 and his whereabouts were since unknown. She maintained that it was through a newspaper that she got to know of computer operators working in the parking plaza being taken into custody by personnel of law enforcement agencies the day two army personnel were assassinated near the parking area.

The court was requested to direct the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure recovery of the missing person and produce him before the court.

SHC’s division bench headed by Justice Syed Mohammad Farooq Shah issued notices to the provincial police and Rangers chief, federal and provincial law officers and others and sought their comments within two weeks.

The court also directed government law officers and others to file comments on petitions against illegal detentions of citizens allegedly by law enforcement agencies personnel.

Petitioners Asma Naz, Noor Akhtar Begum, Shabaz Ali, Zareen and Shamshad Bano submitted in their respective petitions that the LEAs picked up Syed Rizwan Ali, Athar Ali Khan, Faheem Ali, Zahid Hussain and Mohammad Adil from Liaquatabad, Korangi, Gulistan-e-Johar, Lines Area and Korangi, but were not being produced before any court of law.

Notice issued to Fuuast

The SHC issued notices to the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (Fuuast), the Pakistan pharmacy council and others on a petition against the varsity’s pharmacy department’s non-accreditation with the pharmacy council.

The petition was filed by Zakir Khan, a student of Fuuast’s pharmacy department, who maintained that the future of 188 students of the department was at stake.

He submitted that students of the varsity were about to complete their five years Masters programme but due to non-affiliation with the concerned pharmacy council their educational qualification would not be accepted in the pharmaceutical industry. The court was requested to direct the authorities concerned to decide the issue of accreditation of pharmacy council so that future of the students could be saved.