How much does it cost to run Fareed Express, SHC asks Railways

The Sindh High Court on Thursday directed the Pakistan Railway’s (PR) Karachi division superintendent (DS) to submit statistics on revenue generated and expenses incurred on the operation of Fareed Express – a train whose commercial charge has been given to Pakistan Railways Advisory & Consultancy Services (PRACS) – current from at least six months. A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi issued the directive while hearing a constitutional petition filed by Railways Mehnatkash Union Divisional President Manzoor Ahmed Mallah, who had moved the court to cancel Pakistan Railways’ contract to hand over the train’s operations to PRACS.
The petitioner termed the contract as illegal, and said that the procedure of handing over the train to a private party is an open violation of the railway’s rules. The Federal Ministry of Railways, General Manager (Marketing) Pakistan Railways, PR Divisional Superintendent Karachi, Managing Director PRACS & Deputy Director PRACS were cited as respondents. In the last hearing, the petitioner’s counsel had argued that PRACS was established in 1970s with the aim of providing services of consultancy, advisory, designing, building, manufacturing rolling stocks, upkeep of plant machinery, as well as improving and developing railway tracks in the country.
Since the 1980s, however, PRACS deviated from its basic objective and started opening booking agencies in different cities and selling railway tickets at 5 percent commission. Since then public complaints regarding black marketing and overcharging of railways tickets has increased manifold. Yet, PRACS continuously committed severe violation of agreement inked with PR. The petitioner had contended that PR was incurring daily losses of Rs 390,000 due to electricity charges, office furniture, air conditioners, telephone facility etc that were provided to PRACS for opening an office of its booking agency. In 1997, PR’s joint director had ordered immediate closure of PRACS booking agencies across the country and conducting a probe into allegations, but no action has been taken thus far as PR officials were involved in such illegalities.
The counsel further had argued that the PR, in clear violation of rules and regulations, has now started giving commercial charge of certain trains to PRACS. Two trains, Hazara Express and Roohi Express, were already privatized. PRACS pays 60 percent of total revenue generated by operation of these trains while 40 percent is embezzled in connivance with PR authorities. On March 11, 2010, PR unlawfully issued a notification to give commercial charge of Fareed Express to PRACS. The petitioner had prayed the court to declare impugned order as illegal and unlawful, and further, to restrain official respondents from giving trains under commercial charge of PRACS.
Earlier, the court had directed the PRACS managing director to file up-to-date statistics of revenue generated and expenses incurred on the train. The court was informed that PRACS had not been served a notice as yet. The court adjourned the proceedings, with a date for the next hearing to be fixed later. CS, Energy Development Department officials summoned to explain grant of tenders on political basis: The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Thursday issued notices to the Sindh chief secretary and the Coal and Energy Development Department general manager and secretary for submitting their comments on allegedly granting tenders on political basis.
The division bench headed by SHC Chief Justice Musheer Alam heard the constitutional petition moved by Zaheer Ahmed Sheikh and four other contractors pleading the court that the contracts given on political basis be annulled. The petitioners submitted that the department had issued tenders on March 2 but granted the tenders on political basis and the candidates, who had no affiliation with any political parties, were ignored and their offers not considered. After hearing the preliminarily arguments from the petitioners’ side, the bench issued notices to the respondents.