close
Wednesday November 27, 2024

SHC issues arrest warrants for three sub-registrars

By our correspondents
March 02, 2017

Former FCS chief Nisar Morai’s pre-arrest protective bail extended till April 5

  The Sindh High Court on Wednesday issued bailable arrest warrants against three sub-registrars of District East for failing to appear for hearings of petitions filed by residents against demolition of residential flats.

The petitioners, Sanjeeda Khatoon and others, submitted that they were lawful owners of residential flats situated in the city’s Mehmoodabad area, but had been issued eviction notices by the Sindh Building Control Authority.

They told the court that their flats were sub-leased by the sub-registrar of District East and that the impugned eviction notice was illegal. The court, at a previous hearing, had summoned the registrar and sub-registrar of District East to ascertain as to how a building with no approved plan had been sub-leased by the sub-registrar.

The court was informed by the provincial law officer that the sub-registrars had failed to appear for the hearing despite issuance of notices.

The division bench headed by Justice Nadeem Akhtar took notice of the respondents’ non-appearance and issued bailabale warrants against the three sub-registrars namely Imdad Qureshi, Zohaib Gopang and Aftab Kolai. The court has directed them to appear at the next hearing on March 22.

 

Morai’s bail plea

The SHC directed the special prosecutor for the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to file comments on a bail extension petition filed by former chairman of the Fishermen’s Cooperative Society, Nisar Morai, in a NAB inquiry against him for corruption and misuse of authority.

Morai, who had already been granted pre-arrest protective bail in connection with the NAB’s inquiry, had moved the court for an extension in the bail duration.

His counsel Haq Nawaz Talpur submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with corruption and was being falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that Morai was willing to cooperate with the investigation but apprehended his arrest by NAB.

Special prosecutor Akram Javed informed the court that the matter against the petitioner was at an inquiry stage and sought time to file comments. The division bench headed by Justice Syed Mohammad Farooq Shah, while extending Morai’s pre-arrest protective bail till April 5, directed NAB to file comments on the petition.

 

Builder gets bail

The SHC granted protective pre-arrest bail to a builder in a NAB inquiry pertaining to illegal allotment of a 3,354 square yard plot in Clifton.

The petitioner, Amanullah Paracha, submitted that he was issued a call-up notice by NAB with regards to illegal allotment of a commercial plot at the KPT Officers Housing Society.

He submitted that he had nothing to do with the offence as he had obtained the plot for construction of an apartment building after completing all legal formalities.

Paracha submitted he was willing to cooperate with the investigation but expressed apprehension of his arrest and sought pre-arrest protective bail.

The court granted him pre-arrest protective bail against a surety of Rs500,000 and directed him to cooperate with the investigation. The court also issued notices to NAB and other respondents and called their comments on March 22. The court directed the petitioner to deposit his passport before the court nazir.

 

Commissioner appointed 

The SHC appointed its nazir as commissioner to inspect unauthorised construction in Block 13 of Federal B Area.

The inspection has been ordered on a petition by a non-government organisation against the construction of a ground-plus-six storey building in Block 13, FB Area. The petitioner has submitted that the building was being constructed without any approved building plan and without fulfilling the stipulations of the related by-laws.

The court was requested to direct the SBCA to take action against the unauthorised construction and it has now appointed its nazir as commissioner to inspect the site and submit report on whether the construction was violating approved building laws.

The court also ordered that in the meantime no construction shall be raised in violation of approved building plans.