HYDERABAD: A Constitutional Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has restrained the Pakistan Infrastructure Development Company Limited (PIDCL) from finalising the tendering process of a flyover in Latifabad.
The bench comprising Justice Adnan ul Karim Memon and Justice Mohammad Jaffer Raza has issued notices to the company and other respondents and fixed the matter to a date after three weeks.
The order was passed on a petition filed by three citizens Mohammad Noman, Abdul Jabbar and Mohammad Ahsan Mughal through Advocate Ayatullah Khowaja.
In its order, the court framed questions including: whether the proposed flyover is technically feasible and necessary in view of the existing road upgradation scheme; absence of req-uisite approvals, feasibility studies and objections raised by the Hyderabad deputy commissioner; and whether the petitioners are entitled to suspension or cancellation of the project and completion of the approved road upgradation scheme.
The others who have been cited respondents in the petition are the secretary and managing director of the Sindh Mass Transit Authority (SMTA), secretary of the Planning & Development Board, Sindh Finance Department, Hyderabad DC and the director general of the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency.
The petitioners have claimed that the flyover scheme was being undertaken without assessing traffic necessities, technical justification and in spite of the fact that a development scheme involving widening of road and installation of traffic signals, was underway at the proposed site.
Overlapping of two substan-tial infrastructure projects at the same location raises concerns over a lack of coordination between the federal and provincial governments while the expenditure already incurred in the existing scheme may become useless by the proposed flyover scheme, according to them.
They stated in their petition that the roundabout at the site did not experience flow of heavy traffic or congestion that could necessitate construction of a major flyover there.
Also, they maintained, such projects might require substantial construction activity, excavation, temporary road closures, diversions, heavy machinery mobilisation, etc, due to which road users might face prolonged inconvenience.
The petitioners claimed that the proposed flyover construction might substantially alter the existing road configuration, affect adjoining residential accommodations and commercial activities, create noise, dust and other environmental impacts.According to them, the SMTA had on Oct 18, 2024 written to the honourary secretary, Traffic Management Board, Hyderabad, indicating that the authority had conducted a traffic impact study on Sept 23, 2024 of three junctions Shahbaz, Giddu and Labbaik and received an NOC in respect of the scheme titled: ‘Upgradation / installation of traffic signals at three junctions in Hyderabad’.
Then in Nov 2024, the SMTA issued administrative approval for the project with an estimated cost of Rs233.486m. It was approved by the Planning and Development Board (P&DB) and procurement had been completed.
They said the flyover project involved a cost of over Rs660m whereas the roundabout widening and installation of traffic signal project was already in progress and nearing completion.
They argued that the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) or Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) under Section 17 of the Sindh Environmental Protection Act, 2014 was not conducted prior to the advertising of the flyover project.
They said it was a matter of record that no PC-1 was proposed or approved regarding the land-use compatibility, applicable master plan provisions, road design approvals, drainage arrangements, nor was an NOC obtained from the local government.
They referred to the Hyderabad DC’s Aug 31 letter to the PIDCL, requesting cancellation of the flyover project as not feasible.
They said that after the road widening project at Labbaik Chowk, ample space was available for adding another lane and making it eight-lane road, carrying out construction of further access and service roads, laying of sewerage drains, pipelines, etc.
They prayed the court to direct the respondents to stop construction of the flyover.