07-02-2011, 12:04 PM
LAHORE: Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Chief Justice Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry on Friday postponed for July 13 the hearing of a petition against provincial government’s Ashiana Housing Scheme.
An additional advocate general (AAG) stated that it was a public welfare project. He said that the draw for allotment of plots was held in a transparent manner and results were also sent to all the applicants and no illegality was committed in the scheme.
The petitioner submitted that he had not received the result of the draw. He said that before holding the draw, the competent authority should have issued its schedule for the applicants. The chief justice directed the AAG to hand over the copy of draw results to the petitioner to maintain transparency and adjourned the hearing for arguments.
The petitioner, Muhammad Iftikhar Hussain, submitted that the provincial government had to provide houses at an affordable prices to the poor but the scheme had lost the importance, as the process of allotment was not transparent. He alleged that only the favourite of the people at the helm of the affairs were being given houses while the deserving and really needy people had been left alone.
He requested the court to direct the respondents to maintain transparency and equity in the scheme so that actually deserving people could benefit from it.
An additional advocate general (AAG) stated that it was a public welfare project. He said that the draw for allotment of plots was held in a transparent manner and results were also sent to all the applicants and no illegality was committed in the scheme.
The petitioner submitted that he had not received the result of the draw. He said that before holding the draw, the competent authority should have issued its schedule for the applicants. The chief justice directed the AAG to hand over the copy of draw results to the petitioner to maintain transparency and adjourned the hearing for arguments.
The petitioner, Muhammad Iftikhar Hussain, submitted that the provincial government had to provide houses at an affordable prices to the poor but the scheme had lost the importance, as the process of allotment was not transparent. He alleged that only the favourite of the people at the helm of the affairs were being given houses while the deserving and really needy people had been left alone.
He requested the court to direct the respondents to maintain transparency and equity in the scheme so that actually deserving people could benefit from it.