CLC 2015

2015 PLP 1141 (CLC)

DILDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus D.C.O. CHINIOT and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2014-July-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2015 PLP 1141 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties DILDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus D.C.O. CHINIOT and others — Respondents
Primary Law (c) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 1141 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: (c) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 1141 (CLC)?

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: 2015 PLP 1141 (CLC) (DILDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus D.C.O. CHINIOT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (b) Constitution of Pakistan (a) Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Akram Khan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 18

Freedom of trade, business or profession

Scope

State functionaries, duty of

Carrying out any lawful business and trade was the Fundamental Right of an individual under Art.18 of the Constitution

While discharging official functions, efforts should be made by State functionaries to ensure that no one was denied the right to earn his livelihood because of unfair or discriminatory act on their part.

Pt. II, Ch. 1 [Arts.8 to 28]

Fundamental Rights, curtailment of

Law and order situation

State functionaries/Executive, duty of

Denial of any of the fundamental rights of the citizens could not be allowed due to fanciful and arbitrary ideas and presumptions of the State functionaries

No action of the Executive could prevail which may deny any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals on the pretext that the same may cause security problems and law and order situation.

Art. 18

Freedom of trade, business or profession

Scope

Holding of circus and shows

Denial of permission by competent authority

Law and order situation

Petitioner's company applied before the District Coordination Officer/competent authority seeking permission for holding circus and shows

Local police made a report in favour of holding the circus and shows, however the District Coordination Officer refused to give permission for the same due to security reasons

Legality

No action of the Executive could prevail which may deny any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals on the pretext that the same may cause security problems and law and order situation

Accepting notion of District Coordination Officer would mean that people must stay at home and should not carry out any activity in the wake of terrorism and ongoing military action in the country

High Court directed the District Coordination Officer to facilitate the petitioner in holding circus and shows according to schedule, and to convene a meeting with the petitioner and the District Police Officer to provide appropriate security measures for holding of circus shows

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

SHAH KHAWAR, J.

The instant writ petition has been filed through Niaz Ali Manager of Lucky Irani Circus. One Javed Ahmad Malik Manager on behalf of petitioner's company applied for permission of holding of Circus and shows before District Coordination Officer, Chiniot/respondent No.1 at the event of mela/urs of Sakhi Abdul Wahab to be celebrated on Jhang Road Chiniot w.e.f. 11-7-2014 to 16-7-2014.

2. The application for grant of permission made to respondent No.1 was referred to District Police Officer, Chiniot/respondent No.2, who sought report from the local Police. The local Police after making report in favour of the petitioner sent the same to the office of respondents No.2 for onward submission to respondent No.1. Respondent No.2/DPO Chiniot forwarded the report of local Police to the office of DCO Chiniot vide letter dated 1-7-2014, but same was not agreed upon and was rejected by the DCO Chiniot vide order dated 5-7-2014. The petitioner when approached the office of respondent No.1 for obtaining copy of the notification whereby the petitioner was disallowed to exhibit the permission, but staff told that issuance of notification is in progress. The petitioner impugns the said order dated 5-7-2014.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The above mentioned casual attitude of respondent No.1 reflects that he did not perform his Constitutional obligations and also did not take into consideration that carrying out any lawful business and trade is the fundamental right of an individual under Article 18 as guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Reference could be made of the case-law reported as Shaukat Ali v. Government of Pakistan, etc. (PLD 1997 SC 342). It is held that State functionaries are expected to act fairly and justly in a manner which should not give to any one any cause of complaint on account of discriminatory treatment or otherwise. While discharging official functions, efforts should be made by State functionaries to ensure that no one is denied the right to earn his livelihood because of the unfair or discriminatory act on their part.

5. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the High Courts are the custodian of the fundamental rights of its citizens. Denial of any of the fundamental rights of the citizens could not be allowed due to fanciful and arbitrary ideas and presumptions of the State functionaries like respondent No.1. In the same manner, according to Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, protection of life to the citizens has been declared as an inviolable Constitutional obligation of the State. No such action of the Executive could prevail which may deny any of the fundamental rights of individuals on the pretext that same may cause security problems and law and order situation. If this notion of respondent No.1 is accepted, then people must stay at home and should not carry out any activity in the wake of terrorism and Military action in Wazirastan.

6. The impugned order dated 5-7-2014 passed by respondent No.1 is not tenable in the eyes of law, which is hereby set aside.

7. By allowing the instant writ petition. District Officer Coordination/respondent No.1 is directed to facilitate the petitioner in holding Circus shows according to the schedule mentioned in the writ petition. Respondent No.1 is also directed to convene a meeting with the petitioner as well as respondent No.2/ District Police Officer, Chiniot to provide appropriate security measures for holding of Circus shows as proposed by the petitioner. In the same manner, the petitioner is also directed to cooperate with respondents Nos.1 and 2 in finalizing modalities of security and to make sure that during the event, sanctity of the month of holy Ramzan is strictly observed. The learned A.A.-G., Punjab who is present in the Court is directed to communicate this order to respondents Nos.1 and 2 to implement the same.

8. With above observations and directions, the instant writ petition is allowed. MWA/D-7/L Petition allowed.