Shillong Aug. 3: Questions have been raised against the committee that had recommended sealing of highrises in the city on the ground that the panel had no technical expert in it.

The questions were raised by lawyer of the affected parties (building owners) before the Meghalaya High Court's division bench, which is hearing their case.

The committee, with eight members, was constituted following an order passed by Meghalaya High Court on September 4, 2014, in reply to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by city-based lawyer J.M. Thangkhiew and others on the risks posed by highrises in a quake-prone zone.

The East Khasi Hills deputy commissioner is the chairman of the eight-member committee. The other members are director of Meghalaya urban affairs department B. Dutta, secretary of Meghalaya Urban Development Authority (Muda) E. Kharmalki and Toki Blah (a non- official).

Interestingly, the petitioner of the PIL, J.M. Thang-khiew, is a member of the committee besides K. Paul, the counsel for the petitioner, senior advocate S.P. Mahanta who is the counsel for Muda and advocate for the Meghalaya government, N.D. Chullai.

While Muda listed at least 56 highrises in Shillong, the committee, however, submitted a list of only 24 buildings to Meghalaya High Court.

On June 10 this year, the court passed its order asking the East Khasi Hills district administration and police to seal all the 24 under-construction or complete highrises built in violation of building bylaws. According to the bylaws amended in 2011, the height of a highrise cannot exceed 19 metres.

But after the court's order to seal the alleged highrises, the Meghalaya cabinet amended the 2011 building bylaws on June 18 this year by bringing down the height of buildings from 19 metres to 17 metres (around 55 feet). In the 2001 building bylaws, it was ?stated that the maximum height of buildings was fixed at 12 metres (42 feet).

However, the affected parties whose petitions are being heard in the division bench of the high court have questioned the manner in which the committee was constituted as well as the logic that the committee has selected only 24 highrise buildings .

Supreme Court lawyer Sunil Murarka who appeared for two affected parties (respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 12) during his submission before the division bench, questioned the committee which had recommended sealing of 24 highrises.

Murarka pointed out that the members of the committee were mostly officers of the state government, but no architect or structural engineer has been included in the committee.

Stating that architects and structural engineers have the technical knowhow on buildings, Murarka said to know the strength of any structure, materials used for constructing a building should be also tested in a laboratory before taking any decision to seal the buildings.

The Supreme Court lawyer submitted an application before the division bench requesting that the PIL against buildings be extended in the entire state as Meghalaya, which falls under seismic zone V, is prone to earthquakes.

Murarka also wanted that the autonomous district councils as well the Shillong Cantonment Board should be included as parties in the PIL.

The judge, however, said the matter should not be expanded, and asked Murarka to concentrate on the case of his clients.

The bench is likely to take up the case for hearing again tomorrow.