2019 PLP 20 (CLCN)
ZAKA ULLAH MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 PLP 20 (CLCN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAKA ULLAH MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 20 (CLCN)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 20 (CLCN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 20 (CLCN) (ZAKA ULLAH MALIK — Petitioner Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Naved Abbas for Petitioner.
- Afzal Hussin for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court
Scope
Non-interference in security arrangements of a darbar (shrine)
One of the gates of Darbar (shrine) of was closed due to security reasons
According to Auqaf department main entrance of the shrine was open for all the visitors and devotees without any hindrance, while the second gate was closed due to security reasons
Petitioner sought a direction from the High Court to open the second gate
Held, that in the prevailing situation where terrorist and suicide bombers were attacking mosques and shrines all over the country, it was the duty of the government to undertake measures to safeguard the lives of innocent persons
Main entrance of the shrine was open for the visitors and devotees all around the clock, therefore, in order to avoid any untoward incident, if Auqaf department had closed the second gate for security and safety of the visitors, in no manner it could be taken as hurdle for the devotees to pay their homage
Every shrine had its own administration committee, who had to decide the matter about its administration including security
If the administration committee of the Darbar (shrine) in question for security risks was not considering it appropriate to open the second gate then the High Court could not direct the Auqaf department to open the said gate
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Art. 199
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court
Scope
Matters relating to executive administration
High Court was not to be persuaded to intervene in such matters in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.
Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No.1 for opening of Gate No.2 of Darbar Mian Mir situated in the area of Dhrampura, Infantry Road, Lahore for offering prayers.
2. According to report and parawise comments of the respondents that gate No.2 was closed due to security reasons, whereas, main entrance of the shrine is opened for all the visitors and devotees without any hindrance.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. In the prevailing situation where the terrorist and suicide bombers are attacking mosques and shrines all over the country, it is the duty of the government to undertake measures to safeguard the lives of innocent persons. Main entrance of the shrine is opened for the visitors and devotees all around the clock, therefore, in order to avoid any untoward incident, if respondent No.1 has closed gate No.2 for security and safety of the visitors, in no manner it can be taken as hurdle for the devotees to pay their homage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically alleged discrimination by referring to other Shrines of the Punjab in particular that of Data Gunj Bakhash and Hazrat Baba Farid, where all the entrances are opened for visitors. Every shrine has its own administration committee, who has to decide the matter about its administration including security. If the administration committee of Darbar Mian Meer for security risks is not considering it appropriate to open the said gate then this Court cannot direct respondent No.1 to open the said gate. The matter relates to executive administration and this Court is not persuaded to intervene with the same in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed. No order as to costs. MWA/Z-3/L Petition dismissed.