ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has asked the ministries of defence, foreign affairs and interior, as well as the Capital Development Authority (CDA), to submit replies on a petition against the grant of an additional 18 acres of land for the expansion of the US embassy in Islamabad`s Diplomatic Enclave.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, issued notices to the interior ministry and foreign office, asking them to submit their replies on a petition moved by Watan Party Chairman Barrister Zafarullah Khan.

Earlier, on July 1, the apex court had restored the petition af ter it was dismissed by a different bench over non-prosecution or inability of the counsel, who is also the petitioner, to appear before the court.

The petition on behalf of the Watan Party wasmoved before the Supreme Court in 2009 with a pleading that the apex court should order the government to halt the process of selling additional lands to the US mission and to bar the embassy from renting property in Islamabad.

The petitioner had pleaded that sprawling embassy of US has already spread over 38 acres and granting the additional lands was not necessary at all.

On Monday, Barrister Zafarullah Khan invited the attention of the Supreme Court towards international conventions, which state that in the absence of a specific agreement as to the size of a mission, the receiving state may require that the size of a mission be kept within limits considered by it to be reasonable and normal, having regard for the circumstances and conditions in the receiving state and to the needs of the particular mission.

The convention also asks for the grant of a similar size of land for the purpose of building an embassy as was allowed by the receiving state in its own country, the petitioner argued, adding the embassy had already been given 38 acres and further land should not be allowed, especially when the construction was allegedly for military purposes.

During the proceedings, Barrister Khan conceded that the courtcannotissue notices tofor-eign missions since they did not fall under its jurisdiction, but at least the court could ask for reports from the foreign ministry and the CDA about the perceived consequences of the embassy`s expansion.

The petitioner expressed the fear that 500 extra staff members would be deputed at the embassy in addition to the 1,500 already stationed there.

A similar petition was filed before the Supreme Court by Advocate Tariq Asad in May 2012, on behalf of retired Lt-Col Inam-ulRahiem, challenging what he called the `developing of the facilities inside the US embassy`.

The petitioner had asked for the constitution of a high-level commission consisting of retired Supreme Court and High Court judges, senior lawyers, civil engineers and politicians to visit the site of the embassy and submit a detailed report.

The petition was returned, but an appeal against the court office decision is still pending.

Similarly on Sept 13, 2013, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) had expressed its reservations over the expansion of US embassy in a resolution. They said that after the expansion, the building would have the capacity to accommodate more than 5,000 American personnel in close proximity to the Red Zone.