1994 PLP 437 (CLC)

District Magistrate, Lahore in person. This writ petition was presented by Shahid Qadir petitioner through his learned counsel before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The case was sent to me for its hearing today at about 12‑30 p.m. At about 1‑00 p.m., an interim order was passed by this Court directing the office to issue notices to the respondents. Office report shows that only respondents Nos.l to 3, 6 and 9 were served. Respondents Nos.6 and 9 were served on telephone. The remaining respondents Nos.4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 were not served. Respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Lahore, is present in person. Respondents Nos.l and 2 are represented by the learned Advocate‑General. For all intents and purposes, service upon the respondents is not complete. Even the contents of the constitutional petition are not clear inasmuch as full information has not been given by the petitioner in his affidavit. Further, the place where the public meeting shall be held by the P.DA. of Lahore, has not been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner may be asked to specify the exact place where the stage is to be erected by the P.DA. The petition also does not disclose as to whether the construction of the stage has commenced or not. Learned counsel may amend the petition properly and should bring a fresh affidavit about the exact place where the stage shall be erected. The learned District Magistrate says that he was given a verbal information by the high command of P.DA. Lahore to hold a public meeting on 14‑8‑1992 to celebrate the national day. According to him no application in writing was given in that behalf to him. As observed above, this writ petition has been filed before this Court on a day earlier. Obviously, there was no sufficient time to effect service upon the respondents. This being so, the case is adjourned for today at 6‑00 p.m. with a direction that office shall issue fresh notices to the respondents and service shall be effected through District Magistrate, Lahore. All the respondents Nos.4 to 12 or any one of them representing others may come to appear before this Court so that this controversy between the parties is amicably settled." In the meantime, another Writ Petition No.7588/1992 was filed by Abdul Waheed, Chief Corporation Officer, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, against the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Home Department and 9 others, praying therein for issuance of a direction to the respondents Nos.l to 3 that they should exercise their legal authority to restrain respondents Nos.4 to 10 from holding public meeting in Nasir Bagh on 14‑8‑1992 and to set up a stage on Lower Mall Road or on any other road around Nasir Bagh or anywhere in Lahore within the local limits of Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore or Cantonment Board and similarly respondents Nos.4 to 10 be restrained from holding the public meeting or setting up stage on the said place. This writ petition was also forwarded by the Honourable Chief Justice to this Court for its hearing on the same day. The respondents in this case are the same and similarly the prayer made by the petitioner being identical to that of Writ Petition No.7579 of 1992, and as such the following interim order was passed by this Court:‑‑ "Syed Fayyaz Hussain Kadri, Advocate. This Constitutional petition has been moved by Abdul Waheed, Chief Corporation Officer, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, requesting for the issuance of a direction to respondents Nos.l to 3 to restrain the remaining respondents Nos.4 to 10 from holding a public meeting in Nasir Bagh, Lahore, on 14‑8‑1992. It may be stated that another Writ Petition No.7579/92 has been moved on the controversy by Shahid Qadir in which notices have been issued to the respondents. The controversy involved in this writ petition is the same and as such notices of this petition too shall issue to the respondents. The service of notices upon the respondents shall be effected through the District Magistrate, Lahore. It may be observed that no effective order can be passed unless and until all the respondents are served. This case shall also come up for its hearing along with he connected matter today at 6‑00 p.m." The cases were called out at 6‑00 p.m. However, none appeared from the side of the contesting respondents. It was reported by the process‑server that:‑‑ "In obedience to the order dated 13‑8‑1992 passed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Raja Afrasiab Khan, I went as special messenger to effect service upon the respondents. I along with Dr. Shakir, Magistrate went to Nasir Bagh, Lahore to effect service as at the given address none of the respondents was available. On reaching Nasir Bagh, I and the above‑named learned Magistrate were informed that none of the respondents is available at site as they have gone for preparation of a procession to be led today from Delhi Gate, Lahore. Hence. service could not be effected Submitted for information." In this view of the matter, the hearing of case was postponed to 9‑00 p.m. and the following interim order was passed:‑‑ "Presence as before: In view of the urgency and importance involved in the case, the first order was passed in the case at about 1‑00 p.m. Then another order was passed by this Court at about 4.00 p.m. and the case was adjourned to 6‑00 p.m. with a direction that all the respondents shall be served through the learned District Magistrate, Lahore. Report shows that the proposed site of the meeting was visited by the court representative in the company of a learned Magistrate but none of the respondents was available there. This being so, no effective order can be passed by this Court in absence of the respondents. The learned District Magistrate has again been directed to effect service, upon the respondents for proceeding further according to law. As requested by the learned counsel, the case shall come up today at 9‑00 p.m." The case was repeatedly called out at 9‑00 p.m. Again, none appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents to contest this petition. The Learned District Magistrate was present. He stated that a report received by him through Wireless showed that the respondent Jehangir Badar was duly served. However, it was reported that he refused to receive the notice sent to him by this Court. The learned Law Officers were also present. At this stage, Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Advocate, made an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. for his impleadment as a proper and necessary party in the cases referred to above. His application (C.M.3/92) was thus allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner (in W.P.No.7579/1992) has vehemently argued that the petitioner is a patriotic citizen and that he would like to observe the National Day on 14‑8‑1992. He would come out from his house and would share his joys with his fellow countrymen by moving about on The Mall and the Lower Mall Roads, on the day. It was further contended that there was no law under which the respondents Nos.4 to 12 could block the roads by erecting a stage for holding a public meeting. Learned counsel maintained that Lower Mall Road was closed for all practical purposes and that citizens including the petitioner would not be able to pass through the road in order to go to the Shrine of Hazrat Data Sahib and the Tomb of Allama Iqbal to pay his/their respect to the Saint and national poet. Learned counsel therefore, requests that a positive direction may be issued to respondent No.3, District Magistrate, Lahore, to immediately remove the structure having been raised by the respondents Nos.4 to 12 to enable the citizens to move about on The Mall and Lower Mall freely without any let or hindrance.

3. Almost similar arguments were addressed by Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri, learned Senior Legal Advisor of the Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore. According to him, respondents Nos.4 to 12 had absolutely no legal right to interfere in the fundamental rights of the citizens including the petitioner to observe the National Day and move about on the roads of the City to celebrate the occasion.

4. The learned Advocate‑General has drawn the attention of the court to a news having been published in the daily `Nawa‑i‑Waqt', disclosing that the District Administration has allowed permission to P.DA. fo hold its public meeting at Minar‑i‑Pakistan because the public meeting to be held by Pakistan Muslim League had already been cancelled by its organizers. It was, therefore, contended forcefully by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Law Officer that there was now no impediment for respondents Nos.4 to 12 to hold their meeting at Minar‑i‑Pakistan. The learned Law Officer adds that it may create a serious law and order problem if the said respondents are allowed :a hold their meeting on the road.

5. The learned District Magistrate, Lahore, made a statement that he did not receive any application in writing from. respondents Nos.4 to 12 with a request for permission tc hold their public meeting on 14‑8‑1992. However, he conceded that he did receive verbal intimation from the said respondents to disclose that a public meeting would be held on 14‑8‑1992 in Nasir Bagh Lahore, with a view to observe the National Day of Pakistan. He further stated that initially, Minar‑i‑Pakistan was allotted to Pakistan Muslim League to enable it to observe the Day while similar permission was given to Jamaat‑e Islami to hold their meeting at Mochi Gate, Lahore. It was disclosed that verbal permission was given to respondents Nos.4 to 12 to hold the meeting inside Nasir Bagh, Lahore.

6. As observed above, none has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.4 to 12 to contest these proceedings and as such it would be difficult to say something about the position as to what happened between the District Administration and respondents Nos.4 to 12 for holding the said meeting. It is sad, indeed, that this petty matter could not be settled amicably by the respondents Nos.l to 3 about the allotment of a proper place enabling the said respondents to hold their meeting. It is, however, conceded, as already observed above, that Minar‑i‑Pakistan was allotted to Pakistan Muslim League. Similarly, Mochi Gate was allotted to Jamaat‑e‑Islami and an indication was given by respondents Nos.l to 3 to respondents Nos.4 to 12 that they might hold their public meeting at Nasir Bagh, Lahore, before the actual declaration having been made by Pakistan Muslim League to cancel their meeting scheduled to be held on the same day. It was, thus, purely an administrative matter which fell within the jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to allow the parties to hold their public meetings at proper places keeping in view the law and order situation. It is strange that the petitioner, who is an ordinary citizen moved this petition at such an odd time for the issuance of a writ against respondents Nos.4 to 12 restraining them from holding their meeting. It is not understandable as to how he or anybody else would be stopped from visiting the Tomb of Allama Iqbal or Mazar of Hazrat Data Gunj Bakhsh on this occasion. There are admittedly several alternative routes available to enable them to reach their destination without any hindrance. In this view of the matter, it would be really difficult to deprive respondents Nos.4 to 12 from holding their meeting at the proposed place. They have made all their necessary preparations for the meeting well in advance. The people have been 'given to understand that the meeting of P.DA. shall be held in or around Nasir Bagh. Thus shifting of the place by the organizers to some other place for holding the meeting was not possible at such a short notice. In the given circumstances, it was necessary for the District Administration to have settled the controversy between the respondents much before 14th‑of August, 1992. By the grace of Allah Almighty, 14th of August would come again and again for its observance in the national life of Pakistan and, therefore, a dear‑cut arrangement should be made to allot suitable places to all the political parties on their merits, who would desire to celebrate the National Day by holding meetings on the said day. The parties who intend to hold such meetings on the Day may move their applications in writing before the learned District Magistrate disclosing their intention to observe the day at a particular place much before 14th of August every year. On receipt of the applications, the District Magistrate would decide the question about allotment of suitable places to the respective parties on their merits to enable them to hold their meetings. Needless to observe that the importance and status of such political parties are to be kept in view by the District Administration while allotting the place/grounds to them for the said purpose.

7. It may also be observed that writ would not lie in a situation like this because respondents Nos.4 to 12 had their vested right to observe the National Day, like the petitioner. It has not been shown to the satisfaction of this Court that the rights of the petitioner shall be violated if the respondents are allowed to hold their meeting. As already observed above, the petitioner is an ordinary citizen and he does not belong to any political party, while respondents Nos.4 to 12 are the active members and office‑bearers of APC and PDA. This being so, no effective order can be passed by this Court in absence of respondents Nos.4 to 12 about the respective claim of the parties. There was no sufficient evidence to demonstrate that respondents Nos.4 to 12 were served with the notices sent to them by this Court. The conclusion is that the respondents Nos.4 to 12 were not served with notices sent to them by this Court as required by law. This petition, therefore, has to fail on that score alone. Similarly, the second Constitutional petition has also no substance in it inasmuch as no citizen can be deprived of his fundamental right under the Constitution and the law to observe the Day like 14th of August. This being so, there is no force in both the writ petitions which are wholly misconceived in law and facts. Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.

8. By a short order of this Court dated 13‑8‑1992, both the writ petitions were dismissed. These are the reasons for the said short order. AA./S‑187/L. Petitions dismissed.