LAHORE: A division bench of the Lahore High Court (LHC) directed the Punjab advocate general (AG) to inform today (Friday) as to why the issues of heritage, environment and transparency were ignored before launching of the Orange Line Metro Train (OMT) project.
The bench comprising Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh and Justice Shahid Karim remarked that it seems legal formalities were ignored since the beginning of the project.
The bench observed that the provisions of the Punjab Procurement Rules (PPR) were not adopted for this project, inquiring that why rules were not followed before assigning the project to the Nespak, which made its feasibility report in January 2014.
The bench sought replies of queries while hearing of a number of petitions moved on behalf of civil society members including I A Rehman, Kamil Khan Mumtaz, Neelam Hussain, Cecil and Iris Chaudhry Foundation, Judicial Activism Panel, Lahore Bachao Tehreek and members of the civil society against this project.
As the proceedings on these petitions resumed on Thursday, the AG started reading from the feasibility report on the project prepared by MVA Asia Limited. He read out those parts relating to traffic needs of the city and requirements of the future etc. The bench observed that this report had nothing to do with the present petition before the court, and remarked that the court could not know as to why the government is relying on this report time and again.
The bench pointed out that the government should answer queries regarding the project’s planning for protection of heritage, meeting environment hazards and ensuring transparency.
The bench inquired how Nespak prepared feasibility report even before the government engaged it for this project and how Nespak engaged a Chinese company to execute the project on its own.
In reply, the AG said that these were the questions to be answered by the federal government, adding that some of these questions he wanted to reply through the MVA’s report. He said that he wanted to conclude his arguments on the cost of the project after reading this report.
The bench held that it was not in the domain of the court to look into the expenses, adding that the court only wants to see if the project was being executed under the law or not. The bench remarked that it was up to the parliament to look and decide about the expenses.
The AG again requested to let him read out the report of the MVA report. The bench did not allow him, remarking that for last three months, the bench has heard a lot about this report but the government has to clearly tell what it had done to save the heritage, environment and maintenance of transparency.
The bench remarked that if the AG did not want to answer about these issues, at least he should submit a list of these issues before the court.