| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2355 2016 SLD 2355 2016 PLD 699 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 39291 of 2015, decided on 14th July, 2016
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE AND SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Petitioners by: Ms. Asma Jahangir, Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Muhammad Azhar Saddique assisted by Abdullah Malik, Hamayun Faiz Rasool Bhutta, Munir Ahmad, Shabir Ismail, Shahanshah Shamil Parachi, Muhammad Irfan and Adeel Hasan.
Respondents by: Shahid Ha
Writ Petition No. 39291 of 2015, decided on 14th July, 2016
ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE AND SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Petitioners by: Ms. Asma Jahangir, Khawaja Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Muhammad Azhar Saddique assisted by Abdullah Malik, Hamayun Faiz Rasool Bhutta, Munir Ahmad, Shabir Ismail, Shahanshah Shamil Parachi, Muhammad Irfan and Adeel Hasan.
Respondents by: Shahid Ha
KAMIL KHAN MUMTAZ AND othersVSPROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE AND others
Law:
Section:
Per Abid Aziz Shiekh, Justice; Shahid Karim, Justice agreeing.-- (a) Antiquity Act 1975 (VII of 1976)--------- ----------S. 22---------Execution of development schemes and new constructions in proximity to immovable antiquity---------Approval of Director General, Archeology---------Discretion vested with the Director General, Archeology---------Scope---------Over-riding non Obstante provision of S.22 of the Antiquity Act, 1975 provided that no development plan or scheme or new construction on or within distance of 200 feet of a protected antiquity shall be undertaken or executed except with the approval of Director General, Archaeology---------Discretion vested with the Director General, Archaeology to give permission under S.22 was not unfettered, unbridled and could not be exercised to frustrate the purpose of the Antiquity Act, 1975 of preserving and protecting heritage sites---------Such permission could not be granted as a ministerial job in routine at the whim and wish of Director General but only in exceptional circumstances subject to necessary inspections, expert opinions and unequivocal conclusion by Director General that such development plan, scheme or new construction on or within 200 feet of protected antiquity would not in any manner destroy, break, damage, alter, injure, deface, mutilate or impair the protected immovable antiquity---------In case the development plan, scheme or new construction was likely to cause damage to the protected antiquity in any way, the permission under S. 22 could not be granted. (b) Antiquity Act 1975 (VII of 1976)--------- ----------Preamble---------Provisions of the Antiquity Act, 1975---------Said provisions were mandatory as their violation entailed penal consequences. (c) Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance (XXXIV of 1985)--------- ----------S. 11---------Execution of development schemes and new constructions in proximity to Special Premises---------Approval/permission of the Government or a Committee---------Scope---------Permission under S.11 of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985 could not be granted in routine but it was only in exceptional circumstances, where the…