' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---This constitution petition has been filed with the following prayers: "(a) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get access of their shops from the road on eastern side through the said way/street/path towards Dargah Hazart Abdullah Shah Ghazi being lawful and bona fide tenants of their respective shops/units.
(b) To direct the respondents to open the way/street of the petitioner's shops towards Dargah Abdullah Shah Ghazi by breaking the wall erected on the entrance of said way/street/path and allow operation of the Walk Through Gate affixed thereon as per previous practice.
(c) That cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(d) Any other equitable relief under the circumstances may be given to the petitioner"
2. r Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the shop owners situated inside Hazrat Abdullah Shah Ghazi Mazar (hereinafter called as Mazar) and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are their respective landlords. That due to law and order situation and due to some suicidal attacks made on the said Mazar some doors/gates have been closed down for security purposes. As per the petitioner, since by closure of these gates their whole business activities have come to an end as previously the pilgrims coming to the Mazar used to purchase Tabarukat for Nazar-o-Niaz etc. From their shops, which are situated near the gates and now have been closed down hence they are financially suffering therefore the respondents may be directed to open the said gates as closure of those gates is violative of Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
3. Mr. Muslim Shamim Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and states that there is no security risk hence the action taken by the respondents is mala fide. He states that the petitioners have the fundamental right to do a lawful business and after the closure of the gates all the business activities of the petitioners have come to a standstill. According to him, the position prior to the year 2009 may be restored by allowing this petition. Mr. Zahid Farooque Mazari, counsel representing the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the said petition and states that the said action of closing the gates was taken on the basis of intelligence reports. He states that the suicidal attack was made on the said Mazar through which two suicidal bombers killed themselves in an attack on the Mazar. He states that due to the reason that a number of pilgrims attend the Mazar daily to pay their ritual, hence for the safety of those pilgrims this action has been taken. He further states that the contention of the petitioners that the gates in front of their shops have been closed down is also incorrect as according to him only those gates which are on high security risk have been closed down, whereas the gates leading to the shops of the petitioners are still open, hence virtually there is no imminent danger of either closure of business or question of starvation as stressed upon by the petitioners. He further invited our attention to various letters written by the intelligence department and police etc. He states that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands, hence this petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5: Mr. Meeran Muhammad Shah, A.A.-G. On the other hand has stated that since there were security lapses on the part of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 thereafter on the advice of the intelligence department and the high police officials some gates were closed down and the gates with C.C.T.V. Monitoring and scanners facility are still open for the pilgrims. He has invited our attention to Article 9 of the Constitution and states that security of the persons is of prime importance. He further states that whenever Article 9 and Article 18 are compared preference has to be given to Article 9, which speaks of security of the citizens. He therefore states that since the action taken by the respondents is for the security of the pilgrims, which is of prime importance, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. We have heard all the learned counsel at considerable length and have perused the record.
7. Before proceeding any further we deem it appropriate to first discuss Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan which reads as under: ' Security of person: No person shall be deprived of life and liberty, save in accordance with law.
' The word "life" used in the Article is not restricted to physical life but denote something physical survival. It is the bounden duty of the State to provide and to ensure protection of life and liberty of the citizens. In the landmark decision given in case of Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has defined the term "Life" as under: "If there are threats of serious danger, effective measures should be taken to control it and should not be postponed merely on the ground that scientific research and studies are uncertain and not conclusive. Prevention is better than cure. It is a cautious approach to avert a catastrophe at the earliest stage. It is reasonable to take preventive and precautionary measures straightaway instead of maintaining status quo. Article 9 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law. The word "life" is very significant as it covers all facets of human existence. The word "life" has not been defined in the Constitution but it does not mean nor can it be restricted only to the vegetative or animal life or mere existence from conception to death. Life includes all such amenities and facilities which a person born in a free country is entitled to enjoy with dignity legally and constitutionally".
' The word life in the Constitution has not been used in a limited manner. A wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it".
8. In the ease of Suo Motu Petition No,11/2005 (PLD 2006 SC 1) while hearing the case with regard to the danger occasioned by Kite flying it was observed that since the said activities, though for pleasure purposes, is dangerous and involves denial of fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 9, it would not be fair to allow Kite flying. We are of the view that when pleasure activities could be stopped by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan on the ground that it is detrimental to the life of the innocent persons as enshrined in Article 9, why extraordinary pre-cautionary measures may not be adopted on public places which include Mazars, Parks, etc. Even on the cost that some persons might be prejudiced by the said extraordinary measures taken by the Government.
9. In the book "Right to life and Liberty under the Constitution" authored by Justice B.L. Hansaria it has been observed that "The fundamental right to life Article 21 deals with most precious human right and forms the arc of all other rights". In the case of Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 997) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and it stands for safety, security and sanctity of human life. Islam abhors unlawful killing of innocent people and strictly prohibits it in a number of Quranic verses and Ahadith".
' Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the State is duty bound to protect the life and property of every citizens in accordance with law against all the atrocities, target killings, homicide etc. In the said judgment it has also been observed that so far as Article 9 is concerned in order to save the life and liberty of citizen, the State functionary could go to the farthest end and no boundaries and restraints could be imposed. In the decision given by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Arshad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2005 SC 193), it was observed that Government has "the authority to regulate the lawful business or trade" meaning thereby that even if the business is legal and lawful, the Government has the authority to impose regulations in accordance with law. However, so far as Article 9 is concerned there could be no end as the State has to make every possible effort to safe life and liberty of a citizen meaning thereby that the connotation of Article 9 if compared with Article 18 is wider. Hence firstly there hardly arise a question of any comparison between two Articles and, if for the arguments sake, a comparison has to be made, preference in our view has to be given to Article 9 over Article 18.
10. In the case of Adeel-ur-Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan, it has been observed by this Court as under: "It is the duty of the Court under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution to safeguard and preserve the life and dignity of the citizens and protect them from serious and hazardous risks so that they can live a happy and meaningful life. Under Articles 23 and 24 it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that the citizens are not deprived of their property except in accordance with law".
11. In the case of Imdad Hussain v. Province of Sindh (PLD 2007 Karachi 116) a Division Bench of this.
Court has observed that the term "life" used in Article 9 of the Constitution is of very wide import and includes all those rights which are necessary for living a quality life befitting human dignity.
12, In the case of Chief Justice of Pakistan v. The President of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 61 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the word "LIFE protected and assured by various constitutions could never be understood to have been used in a limited or a restricted sense". Hence if these two terms are read in juxta-position the term life has to be given broadest possible meaning and could not be interpreted in a pedantic or in narrow manner. With each passing day life and liberty of a person is becoming more and more important and the State, in our view, should be more dynamic in its approach to preserve the life and liberty of a person. It is the primary responsibility of the State to make sure that life and liberty of every citizen of the State has to be preserved and protected.
13. In the case of Muhammad Aslam (Amin Aslam) v. District Police Officer, Rawalpindi (2009 SCMR 141) it has been observed that it is the duty of the Courts to safeguard the fundamental rights of every citizen and to protect the life and liberty of every citizen of Pakistan.
14. In the present case also due to suicidal attack by the terrorists some gates of the said Mazar are closed down for the security of none others but the pilgrims coming to the Mawr. It is evident from the record that a number of letters were addressed by the law enforcement agencies to the respondents with regard to security of Mazar which includes closure of some gates however in spite of letters a security lapse took place in the year 2010 when two suicidal attackers entered the Mawr and got themselves killed by injuring and causing death to a number of pilgrims. We are of the view that adopting strict security measures on the Mazar is necessary looking at the prevailing situation. It is also noted that the gates have not been closed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on their own will and wish rather the said gates have been shut down on the specific instructions of the intelligence agencies and police officials. Hence it could not be said the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are either against the petitioner to deprive them of their business activities or have done so on their own accord. We have further seen that affidavit have been obtained from a number of shops owners wherein it has categorically been admitted by these, shops owners that they would abide by the certain pre-conditions imposed by the respondents concerning security of the Mazar.
15. We therefore in view of the facts mentioned above are of the view that security of the persons has to be given prime importance. Hence we do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed along with the listed application.