LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC), after conclusion of arguments, reserved the verdict on a number of petitions challenging the Orange Line Metro Train (OMT) project. On Thursday, Punjab Advocate General Shakeelur Rehman (AG), bench-appointed amicus curiae (friend of court) and Supreme Court Bar Association President Barrister Ali Zafar, and petitioners’ counsel concluded their arguments after which the bench, comprising Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Shahid Karim, reserved the judgment. Civil society members and organisations including IA Rehman, Kamil Khan Mumtaz, Neelam Hussain, Cecil and Iris Chaudhry Foundation, Judicial Activism Panel and Lahore Bachao Tehreek had moved these petitions. The proceedings on these petitions commenced in November 2015. On January 28, the bench had stayed the construction of OMT at eleven historical monuments including Lakshmi Building, Shalimar Garden, General Post Office, Aiwan-e-Auqaf, Shah Charagh Building, Supreme Court Lahore Registry, Saint Andew Church, Baba Mauj Darya’s Shrine, Ghulabi Bagh, Bhudu ka Awa, Chauburji and tomb of Zebun Nisa. The AG said that OMT was a public welfare project and petitioners should not be allowed to cause hurdles in its completion. He claimed that the UNESCO had also approved the project and gave a go ahead to the government regarding its construction. He said the government tried its best to protect environment and historical monuments and there would be no danger for the public at large. He said that this project was initiated after hearing all public objections and people, whose lands were acquired for this project, were compensated according to the market value. He said that the government had already spent huge amount money to lay down the foundation of this project and it should not be stopped. Amicus curiae Barrister Ali Zafar said that it was the right of government to construct and develop public infrastructure in the city to meet the demands of the people. He said that the court must refrain from stopping the government from planning, expansion and developing infrastructure, as it was an established fact that the courts do not interfere in policy matters. However, he submitted that the development must always be sustainable and whenever the government undertakes an urban planning project, it must ensure that the project does not harm any protected site. “If development is contrary to the constitution or the law and fundamental rights or if the urban development violates the basic and desirable features of an existing urban fabric, then the courts have an obligation to stop such a project on the principle that a vibrant existing urban fabric is connected to the right of life,” he added. Relying on the Antiquities Act, 1975, he submitted that this law specifies that all monuments, objects and sites of historical interest were protected from any damage and as such imposes a positive duty on the government while at the same time prohibits it from allowing any construction within 200 feet of the monument. He stated that Pakistan was also a signatory to the convention under which historical monuments like Shalamar Garden, Chauburji, Mauj Darya Mosque, Baba Mauj Darya Shrine etc. are all protected. He also submitted that in case the experts conclude that there is damage to the historical sites, then the relevant changes be made in the project to ensure that no harm whatsoever is caused to the monuments. Petitioners’ counsel Muhammad Azhar Siddique had claimed that this project was waste of money and the government was using funds allocated for education, health and civic facilities on this project. He said that other cities of the Punjab also needed civic facilities but those were ignored, which was discriminatory, as every mega project cater to the needs of the chief minister’s residential city. He stated that this project would physically destroy the heritage of this historical city, requesting the court to declare this project a violation of Articles 9, 10-A, 14, 23, 24, 25 and 28 of the Constitution of Pakistan.