Shopping cart

Magazines cover a wide array subjects, including but not limited to fashion, lifestyle, health, politics, business, Entertainment, sports, science,

Petition Claims Major Flaw in Karachi’s E-Challan System

A petition has been filed in the Sindh High Court challenging an electronic traffic challan issued to a public transport bus in Karachi, raising concerns about the accuracy of the city’s electronic traffic enforcement system.

The petition was submitted by Farooq Ahmed, president of the Bus Owners Association, through his legal counsel. The case names several officials as respondents, including the Secretary Transport, the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), and the Deputy Inspector General of Traffic.

According to the petitioner, the bus involved in the case is equipped with a built-in speed limiter installed by the manufacturer, restricting its maximum speed to 120 kilometres per hour. The petitioner argued that the vehicle cannot exceed this limit under any circumstances due to the technical restrictions of the limiter.

However, a camera operating under Karachi’s e-challan traffic enforcement system reportedly recorded the bus traveling at 160 kilometres per hour, leading to the issuance of a traffic challan.

The petition claims that this discrepancy raises serious questions about the reliability and technical accuracy of the speed-monitoring cameras used in the city’s automated traffic enforcement system.

The petitioner has asked the court to order a complete technical audit of the cameras and vehicle speed tracking system by independent experts to determine whether any malfunction or error exists in the monitoring technology.

Additionally, the court has been requested to cancel heavy fines issued through the system if technical faults are confirmed and to initiate action against those responsible.

The petitioner also urged the court to suspend the e-challan issued to the bus until the matter is fully investigated.

A two-member bench headed by Justice Adnan Iqbal Memon has issued notices to the respondents and adjourned the hearing of the case until April 6.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts