The supreme court (SC) on Thursday pursued report from Capital Development Authority (CDA) concerning impingements placed in front of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) headquarters.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed on Thursday took up three different petitions relating to the use of residential houses for commercial purposes as well as encroachments and road blocks created by government offices, private residences and some embassies located in the residential sectors of Islamabad in the name of security.
During the course of hearing, the CDA informed the court that 228 premises, which were functional in residential areas, had been sealed while sub office of Canadian Embassy had brought the premises into confirming land.
The civic body however, said that the Palestine Embassy requested that their construction work in Diplomatic Enclave was near completion and they will shift the embassy in next 3 months.
Meanwhile, a report submitted by Director Building Control Shafi Muhammad stated that sealing operation was going on, however, 585 different premises wherein, the commercial activities were continued, had been brought to confirming use by their owners.
The report said that the total number of premises, being functional in residential areas, remained 891. Hafeez-u-Rehman, one of the counsels for CDA, produced the report before the bench further stating that Federal Audit Office and Anti Narcotics Office had been vacated.
In pursuance of the court’s earlier order, Additional Attorney General Amir Rehman informed the court that process of shifting government offices from residential area to commercial area will take some more time.
The report claimed that 24 guest houses in addition to 585 premises had brought their premises into confirming use whereas rest had lodged representation to CDA against the public notice issued by authority in Islamabad High Court.
Counsel for Bridge Factor (Pvt) Limited Company, the petitioner in the instant cases, Advocate Ali Raza informed the court that CDA was pressurizing his client for taking back the petition.