SHC seeks copy of Sindh govt reply in BRT Lot-2 office sealing case

KARACHI: A constitutional bench of the Sindh High Court on Sunday directed the Advocate General Sindh to provide the petitioner’s lawyer with a copy of the provincial government’s reply in a case concerning the sealing of a contractor’s office linked to BRT Lot-2.

A two-member bench heard the petition, which challenges the sealing of the contractor’s office on Rashid Minhas Road.

During the hearing, the Advocate General submitted a response before the court. According to the reply placed on record, the office had been sealed in compliance with orders issued by the Commissioner Karachi.

The petitioner’s counsel, however, told the court that only a soft copy of the inspection report had been supplied and that the official version had not been provided.

Court proceedings

The matter came before a constitutional bench of the high court, which took up the petition against the sealing of the office associated with the BRT Lot-2 contractor.

The bench then directed the Advocate General Sindh to furnish a copy of the government’s reply to the petitioner’s counsel so that the case could proceed with both sides having access to the material submitted before the court.

The government’s position, as presented in court by the Advocate General, was that the sealing action was carried out in line with directions issued by the Commissioner Karachi.

On the other hand, the petitioner’s side maintained that the documentation shared so far was incomplete, arguing that the official version of the inspection report had not been handed over and that only a digital copy had been made available.

Case focus

The petition before the Sindh High Court relates specifically to the sealing of the contractor’s office located on Rashid Minhas Road and questions the legality and basis of that action.

The hearing remained focused on the exchange of documents and the government’s response submitted in court. No further details were stated in the report regarding the next date of hearing or any additional directions beyond the order to provide the reply copy to the petitioner’s lawyer.

The petitioner’s counsel also argued before the bench that only a soft copy of the inspection report had been provided, not the official version.