1990 PLP 1468 (MLD)

"It is intimated that the Management Committee of the Mosque situated at Civil Quarters Road has submitted a building plan to Municipal Committee Sheikhupura for the extension in the existing Mosque. It is pointed out that Government of the Punjab Local Government & Rural Development Department vide letter No.S‑111/2‑27/81 dated 4‑10‑1981 has constituted a Committee consisting of the following members for according permission for the construction of Mosque and other religious monuments: ?(i) Deputy Commissioner Convener (ii) Dy: Din (Town Planning) H & PP Divn. Member (iii) XEN (Buildings) ‑do- (iv) Xen (PHED) ‑do- (v) Mayor/Chairman of the Municipal Corp:/Committee concerned or their representative. Member/Secy: This is to be read with memo dated 3‑4-1985 from Chairman to Deputy Commissioner. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:‑‑ "It is, therefore, requested that the building plan submitted by the President Jamia Tohidia for the construction of mosque may please be placed before the District Religious Committee, constituted by the Government:" It is clear from the reading the both letters together that the District Religious Committee was constituted by the Government and the Chairman, M.C., Sheikhupura, has accordingly asked for placing the building plan of the mosque before the said Committee. The Committee has no other connection with the mosque. These letters if minutely gone through demolish the complete fabric of the structure tried to be built by the learned counsel for the applicants. It is clear from these letters that the Society was functioning as such to the entire knowledge of the District Administration including Deputy Commissioner; (ii) The second document relied on by the learned counsel for the applicants is circular dated 7‑4‑1954. This again is not relevant as is clear from the subject which reads as under:‑‑ "Subject: Construction of mosques in the compounds attached to Government buildings." It is nobody's case that the civil quarter's mosque is situated in any compound or that it was built after issuance of this circular. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the word `premises' if considered in wider scope it includes the locality. The argument is clearly against the text of the circular. The same is to be read as a whole and it is " clear that it covered only the mosque to be built in the compound of the ` premises. It has nothing to do with the other mosques to be built or the mosques already in‑existence. (iii) The third document to which the learned counsel has referred is a memorandum dated 25‑9‑1939. This is again irrelevant because through this Executive Engineers were directed to prepare the lists of places of worships of different religions in Punjab and to ensure that no place of worships is constructed on Government's land without prior approval of the Government of Punjab; and (iv) Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to circular dated 24‑9‑1984. This is again irrelevant. This was issued to all Mayors/Chairmen, Municipal Corporations/Committees and Town Committees in the Punjab. It was pointed out that it has come to the notice of the Government that construction of religious buildings/places outside Housing Schemes has led to tension amongst various religions, religious factions and sects and in order to obviate any ugly situation it was thought necessary to make institutional arrangements for regulating the construction of places of worship within municipal limits. It was approved by the Government that committees be constituted at District levels with Deputy Commissioner as Convener. This is again irrelevant, because this only stressed the need of Committees for dealing with new places for worship within Municipal limits. It was in fact just repetition of Committees constituted under the circular letter dated 4‑10‑1981, as is clear from the memo. of the Chairman, M.C. dated 17‑4‑1982 to Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupbra. The same has already been reproduced in the earlier portion of this judgment.

13. The learned counsel in the end submitted that the membership of the petitioner is limited to 11 members. It is in fact closed door management with no access to the others. It is, therefore, concluded that following principle of judicial restraint as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 1978 S C M R 367 the writ should be refused. The submission is controverted by the Minutes Book, according to which the strength of the members is 42.

14. The petitioners like all other citizens have right of to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law. This is an inalienable right of every person, natural or legal, guaranteed by the Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The respondents have over‑stepped their jurisdiction and it is clearly wanton and careless exercise of power. The same cannot be protected and given H blessing.

15. The result is that this petition is allowed and the impugned order and proceedings of the respondents are declared to be illegal and without jurisdiction. M.BA./A‑952/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.