' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner, a practising lawyer, realizes his duty of over seeing the financial irregularities incurred and the financial loss suffered by the respondents and the hardships posed to air travellers and the public at the hands of the respondents. He feels a concern over the levy of entry fee at the rate of Rs,20/- to 40/- per head on those desiring to enter the Benazir Bhutto International Airport, Islamabad to bid the passengers, bonjou or aurevoir. Respondent No,6 is a contractor engaged in collection of the entry fee on behalf of respondent No,1. The petitioner alleges the imposition of the entry fee to be the abuse by the respondents of their dominating position in violation of Competition Act, 2010. The petitioner is interested in safety of the air travellers and adequate provision of the necessary facilities to the passengers and is also concerned over the imposition of the entry fee without providing any additional service or facility to those seeking entry into the airport premises and the waiting lounge. He feels discriminated as similar fees are not being charged at any other airport of Pakistan except BB International Airport, Islamabad and Peshawar Airport, Peshawar. He further feels discriminated as the big vehicles belonging to or used by the Government high ups and the parliamentarians are not charged with same fees; that the levy and charging of the entry fee, besides being not permissible under the law facilities the entry of unlimited persons into the parking lot and the waiting lounge of the airport at the cost of the safety of the commuters. He also disputes the purchase of certain air crafts in violation of the rules laid down in Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (XXII of 2002).
2. After agitating against the multidimensional irregularities committed by the respondents in the purchase and preparation of the air crafts and control of the passengers, the learned counsel for the time being confines his arguments on the point of the entry fee and reserves his right to raise the other issues later.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf Of the Federation of Pakistan and the Civil Aviation Authority contend that the Management, control of service And management and creation of the funds is within the competence of CAA under Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982. Section 5 (3) (VIII) and (XI) of the Ordinance, 1982 gives the CAA the authority to regulate and control the civil aviation activities, to manage the estates at airports and any other matter facilitating, the achievement of its objects. Section 6 of the Ordinance (ibid) gives respondent No,1, the authority to control over planning, construction, operation and maintenance. Section 16 of the Ordinance enables the authority to create a fund to meet the charges in connection with its functions. It also gives the said respondent the authority to levy and collect the fees at such rates as may be prescribed by it. Thus they argue that no irregularity or illegality is committed by the respondent CAA, in case it chooses to and collects the entry fee in order to check the unlimited entry of the unlimited people into the parking lot and waiting lounge; that imposition of the airport entry fee has by the passage of time proved to be a successful device for minimizing the entry; that the entry of the people has not been completely blocked. It has been regulated which is permissible under Articles 15 and 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that the petitioner has no reason to grouse over the imposition of the fee. It was imposed at the Peshawar International Airport, Peshawar after a bomb blast in the year 2007 that killed many and at BBI Airport, Islamabad where a bid to blow up this facility was foiled; that both these airports are situated in the heart of the town and if fee is not imposed the location of these two airports will attract undesired crowds wishing to accompany the passengers up to the waiting lounge that may create a law and order situation and risk, the safety of the passengers and create a shortage of the facilities that the CAA provides to its passengers; that some of the people pressed the same matter before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was considered not proceed able, therefore, it can safely be interpreted that the matter was not of public importance; that in Writ Petition No,918 of 2007 titled "Abdul Samad Khan v. Federation of Pakistan" similar questions were raised. Their lordships in the Division Bench of Peshawar High Court Peshawar, were of the view that the entry fee was imposed at the Peshawar International Airport to provide the passengers safety and the facilities which in the absence of the imposition and collection of such fees would be an impossibility. The petition was dismissed. The dismissal of that petition would Operate as res judicata.
4. Mr. Babar Ali, Advocate for respondents Nos.5 and 6 contends that such fee could be levied and collected under the authority vested in Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 (ibid).
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
6. The matter relating to the imposition of fees and its collection cannot be resolved unless we fix the priorities between the safety and security of the people, airport building and the aircrafts and begging 20 chips from each visitor seeking ingress to the airport accompanying the commuter. If the safety and security of the aircraft, the airport and the passengers comes on priority, very strict measures have to be taken to reduce the number of the people and strict search shall have to be made. This becomes very difficult if not impossible if we allow everybody to enter into parking lot and the passengers lounge if he pays Rs,20/- for his entry. Payment of this amount of money will be a check against every effort of CAA to control the number of the people. A bus load of the people with a single air passenger will make its way into the parking lot and the lounge, if they pay a couple of hundred of rupees to the authorities. The airport is a place of utility. The airport is not a place for entertainment where entry could be allowed and tolerated by payment of a fee. Any damage to the building or the properties will be a colossal loss to the national economy. Any successful high jacking of a plane by one of the such persons, will be a good adventure. When the choice in between safety and making of Rs,80,000/- a day, that respondent No,6 pays to CAA, the safety shall be the choice. It is a place where the national and the international aircrafts are to land and fly. A very high standard of security is required and is demanded from the foreign airliners.
Most of the airlines have already ceased operating from our airports, the others are following. The imposition of high fee may yield the required result in some cases where the security and safety is not at stake like in the parking areas close to markets which is in vogue in congested towns. It may reduce the number of those who want to travel in their private vehicles and increase the number of those who opt to travel in public transport. The ticketing when giving in the hands of a contractor, respondent No,6, he will be more interested in making his fortune than making search and taking care of the safety of the passengers and the property. The entry into the public parks and archeological sites has been entrusted to the contractors against fixed contract money paid to the department. The contractor overlooking the visible purpose of the visitors allows unlimited number of beggars, cheats, quacks, vendors, teams of football and cricket to enter, ravish and destroy the sites. The entry of more visitors will lower the standard and reduce the quantum of the facilities at the airport that are purported to be provided to the passengers. The presence of more people than the space at the airport may sustain hampers the good management and the control at the airports.
7. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted. The imposition of entry fee on the visitors accompanying the air travellers and collection thereof being hazardous to the security, control and good management, is declared illegal. The same shall be abolished forthwith. The respondents may, however, take measures to reduce and limit the number of the visitors accompanying the air travellers into the parking lot and the lounge.