The Sindh High Court declared that it would not allow commercial activities in public parks and playgrounds in the metropolis.A two-judge bench headed by acting Chief Justice IrfanSaadat Khan asked the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (KMC) and district administrations to submit the record of all parks and playgrounds under their control by the next hearing.It also sought details of any park or playground that had been leaded to any individual.
The bench issued these directives while hearing a petition filed against an auction for the rights of collection of entry fees at six major parks — Beach Park, Jheel Park, Hill Park, Bagh-i-Jinnah (Polo Ground), Clifton’s AmeerKhusro and ST-22 parks — in the metropolis.In June, the SHC, through an interim order, had restrained the KMC and other respondents from proceeding with the auction and asked them not to finalise the process till further orders.
At the outset of the hearing on Wednesday, the acting chief justice expressed resentment when he was informed that entry and parking fees were being charged at public parks.He remarked that commercial activities would not be tolerated on the premises of public parks and playgrounds.However, KMC counsel claimed that the corporation was not charging any entry fee in the parks under its administrative control.Petitioner Tariq Mansoor submitted that the entry fee was being charged at Hill Park and Askari Park.
The acting chief justice asked the lawyers to inform the court about the status of fees at the parks where rides and swings were installed. The bench adjourned the hearing for a date to be later fixed by the office of the court.In his petition, the petitioner had maintained that the Supreme Court had completely barred any type of commercial activities on the premises of public parks and playground.
He had contended that as per a public notice published in the media on May 14, the KMC was going to charge entry fee from visitors to six parks.Citing the local government secretary, Karachi administrator and director general of parks & horticulture as respondents, he argued that the impugned public notice was issued in violation of the orders of the Supreme Court.He also stated that the petition was filed for adjudication justice, protection and enforcement of fundamental rights of the citizens and public at large as guaranteed in Articles 2-A, 3, 8, 9, 25, 37, 38 of the Constitution and the respondents had apparently attempted to infringe such rights.
