1996CLC718 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Application for permission to hold Majlis and use of loudspeaker ‑‑‑Rejection‑‑ `Petitioner had challenged rejection of his application filed for securing permission to hold Majlis/Meeting during month of Moharram‑ul‑Haram and using of loudspeaker therein‑‑‑In absence of any provisions in West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeaker and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965 for filing of application obtaining of a licence/permission to hold a meeting and to use loudspeaker, question of presenting application in that respect did not arise‑‑‑If petitioner's application was rejected he was himself to blame for having applied for permission. Talib Hussain Rizvi and Hamid Ali Mirza for Petitioner. Sabir Hussain Shah, Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th November, 1994. Muhammad Siddique, petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. l for securing permission to hold Majlis/Meeting during 26th to 30th of Moharram‑ul‑Haram and .using of loudspeaker therein. This application was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, Model Town, Lahore and intimation of the order was conveyed to the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 20‑3‑1993. He made a representation to respondents Nos. l to 3 for withdrawal of the order. However, it was not accepted, hence, he has filed this Constitutional petition seeking a declaration to the effect that the order dated 20‑3‑1993, may be declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and that respondents Nos. l to 4 may be directed to permit the use of loudspeaker at Azakhana Janh‑e‑Sakinatul Hussain, 31‑A, Rehmanpura, Lahore during the coming month of Mo4arra‑ul‑Haram and Ramzan‑ul‑Mubarik.

2. M/s. Talib H. Rizvi and Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocates have appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas, Mr. Sabir Hussain Shah, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that under the provisions of West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeaker and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965, there is no provision for grant of permission as prayed for, therefore, application filed by the petitioner as well as this writ petition is misconceived, hence is liable to be dismissed as being without any actionable cause of action. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceding the legal position has contended that his application has been refused, therefore, he has cause of grievance and has filed this Constitutional petition. He has placed on record copy of the order dated 20‑4‑1970 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, In re: W.P. No.617 of 1970, whereby, similar writ petition was dismissed with observation.

3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no provisions whatsoever, in Ordinance II, 1965 i.e. West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeaker and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance, 1965, for filing of an application obtaining of a licence/permission to hold a meeting and to use loudspeaker therein, The question of presenting an application hence did not arise. If the petitioner's application was rejected he was himself to be blamed for having applied for permission. There is no doubt that if there is a transgression of any of the provisions of the Ordinance by the administration a person aggrieved has remedies as provided under the law. Above taken view is supported by the order dated 20‑4‑1970, passed by a Division Bench of this Court In re: W.P. No.617/70, copy whereof has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is misconceived and hence is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑2102/L Petition dismissed