2018 PLP 224 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition whereby, petitioners have sought the following remedies:

"It is there for humbly prayed,

1. That impugned prosecution order dated 13/3/2013 passed by government of Pakistan, ministry of interior may be declared null and void.

2. That the respondents may be directed not to restrain petitioners from profess and practice religious right in any part of country especially district Hunza Nagar G.B.

3. That any other remedy which this honourable court deems proper may also be granted in favour of petitioners to meet ends of justice."

2. Order impugned through this petition is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN EXTRAORDINARY GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR Islamabad, the 13th Mach, 2013. ORDER S.O.R. (I)/2013. WHEREAS, the Federal Government having reason to believe that "Khana-e-Hiqmat Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit" is concerned in Terrorism. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11B of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (XXVII) of 1997 read with section 11E thereof, the Federal Government hereby proscribes Khana-e-Hikmat Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit for the purpose of the said Act and list in the FIRST SCHEDULE to the said Act. [No.F.1/10/2012-Poll(I] sd/xx (Hakim Din ) Section Officer Feeling aggrieved from the above order of respondents, petitioners filed this petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners. We have also heard Deputy Attorney General for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Assistant Advocate General for respondents Nos.3 and

4. The questions debated before us are:--

1. Whether respondents could pass the impugned order referred above or not?

2. Whether petitioners are involved in the activities resulting to the impugned order?

3. Whether impugned order amounted to any restriction on the respondents' right to profess and practice their religious right? As to answer to first question, we are of the view that the Act referred in the impugned order is admittedly law of the land and before invoking the provisions of sections 11-B and 11-E of the Act, respondents found the circumstances described in sections 11-A(e) and 11-C of the Act referred in the impugned order. The said provisions of law clearly empower respondents to pass the impugned orders. As to answer to second question, respondents have passed impugned orders after ascertaining that petitioners were involved in the activities described in different parts of the Act. In our opinion, respondents are organs of State machinery and their administrative acts are acts on the part of State of Pakistan. In our humble opinion, the proscription of petitioners is an administrative act of the respondents, very similar to that of the administrative acts of the respondents empowering them to declare any organization as a terrorist outfit. So, in our opinion, courts are supposed to interfere very sparingly in the administrative acts of the State machinery and before such interference courts are to ascertain that any liberty of the citizen being curtailed without exercising the authority of State lawfully. Yet petitioners are free to challenge the administrative acts of the respondents in any Civil Court as the question raised through this petition are questions of fact and need to be proved through evidence. In answer to third question, we hold that the proof of this question is never possible without establishing the infringement of any basic right of petitioners to profess and practice any religion. We have noted that through the impugned order, petitioners have not been restrained from professing and practicing any established religion or sect.

4. It is not disputed that petitioners are not members of any organization registered under any law governing registration of any organization. Counsel for petitioners had no answer to the argument that any association or organization not registered under the relevant laws can file any writ petition or not?

5. We, therefore, dismiss this petition finding the same meritless and incompetent in the present form. Petition dismissed. File be consigned to record. ZC/39/GB Petition dismissed.