PESHAWAR: A larger bench of the Peshawar High Court on Thursday validated the recent amendments to the local government law, which allowed commercial activities in Peshawar`s upscale residential area of University Town for five years, and declared them in line with the Constitution.

Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth, Justice Roohul Amin Khan and Justice Lal Jan Khattak pronounced the short order of dismissing a petition filed by Dr Khusnood Ali Baz and several other residents of University Town challenging the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Government (Amendment) Act 2017 with a request to declare it unconstitutional and in conflict with the existing laws.

The bench heard continuous arguments of all parties to the case for three days.

The KP Local Government (Amendment) Act was passed by the provincial assembly on Apr 11 and received the governor`s assenton Apr 13.

The amendments were made to the KP Local Government Act 2013 in the wake of a crackdown on a large number of commercial entities operating in the University Town, including educational institutions, health facilities, beauty parlours, restaurants, guesthouses and NGO of fices.

The petitioners` lawyer contended that the high court had delivered a judgment in different writ petitions on Mar 10, 2015, ordering an immediate end to all sorts of commercial activities in the locality declaring them against the law.

He said recently, the court had begun the contempt of court proceedings against the University Town`s administration for not implementing the earlier order after which the administration had sealed around 157 commercial entities.

The lawyer said to make the earlier orders of the high court ineffective the government had passed the controversial law from the provincial assembly so as to allow commercialisation of University Town for five years.

He contended that there were four towns in Peshawar and University Town was not part of any of these towns. He added that throughanotificationin1989theUniversityTown was declared a separate town having its own town committee to look after its affairs. He added that the recent amendments were not applicable to University Town.

He argued that massive commercial activities had turned into nuisance and had made lives of people miserable in the locality.

KP advocate general Abdul Lateef Yousafzai and Advocate Sabauddin Khattak, appearing for administration of Town III where University Town is situated, argued against the petition and contended that this locality was part of Town III under the Local Government Act, 2013.

They contended that earlier under another law in 1989 University Town was given status of a separate town and for that purpose a town committee was constituted.

However, they stated that the said law was later merged in the Local Government Ordinance, 2001.

Advocate General Lateef Yousafzai contended that University Town was no longer a separate town and the town committee also now ceased to exist. He added that under the present local government law the University Town was now part of Neighbourhood Council No 36 in whichareas of Danishabad and Lalazar were also included.

Mr Yousafzai contended that around 157 commercial entities had been sealed and if these entities were completely closed down it would rendered thousands of people jobless. He added that the provincial legislature had the constitutional prerogative to enact a law as well as to make amendments in any law.

He referred to several judgments of the superior courts in support of his contention.

Sardar Ali Raza and Barrister Mudassir Amir, lawyers for some entities including educational institutions, said the amendments to the law were in accordance with the Constitution and therefore, they couldn`t be called ultra vires.

They stated that the government had the powers to make amendments in the master plan of any area through legislation.

The lawyers referred to the case of the Lahore Development Authority and contended that in several residential areas of Lahore, the government had changed the master plan and allowed commercial activities.

They added that the superior courts had decided that case in favour of the government.