QUETTA: The Baloc­hi­stan High Court has dec­lared that its October order regarding the Zarghoon Road expansion project and the acquisition of railway land for construction work was final and warned against any attempts to obstruct the construction. A two-member BHC bench comprising justices Mohammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, while hearing a petition on the matter, directed the divisional superintendent of Pakistan Railways to ensure that his department refrains from causing any obstructions and instead take legal actions where required. The petition was filed by Advocate Syed Nazir Ahmed Agha citing the Balochistan government, chief secretary and others as respondents. During the hearing, the additional advocate general and assistant attorney general informed the court that two meetings, led by the Balochistan chief secretary, were held this month. The first meeting, which included the heads of all federal departments, took several key decisions, including instr­u­ctions to expedite the land acquisition process by the Quetta deputy commissioner. In the subsequent meeting with Qesco officials, an executive engineer (XEN) was appointed as the focal person to develop a comprehensive plan for the relocation and reinstallation of electricity poles in accordance with the proposed design for widening Zarghoon Road. Similarly, officials from SSGCL and PTCL assured that as soon as the land acquisition is completed, the work of shifting the gas pipeline and fiber optics would begin on a war footing to avoid any unnecessary delay in the timely completion of the project. The Quetta deputy commissioner informed the court that after issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, they had also announced the award under Section 9 of the Act. The bench directed the deputy commissioner to continue with the land acquisition process strictly within the legal framework. The project director of the Chief Minister’s Quetta Development Package presented a progress report on Anscomb Road. The judges regretted that despite announcing several timelines, the contractor had failed to complete the work, and as a result, several small components remained incomplete and not properly attended to. The hearing was later adjourned until March 6, 2025.