' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner calls in question the order of respondent No,2 whereby he while invoking the provisions of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Passed the following directions:- "All marriage related functions shall be closed by 10:00 p.m. In all hotels, marriage halls, open grounds/parks, residences, clubs, roads and streets or any other place where such functions can be held".
2. Petitioner submits that by imposing the aforesaid restriction the Government of the Punjab has curtailed the employment hours of the general public which hardly gets events of entertainment in this world of anxiety; that the marriage is an important event in the life of an individual and imposition of such a ban is violative of Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that Article 18 of the Constitution provides freedom of trade, business and lawful profession to every citizen but through the impugned ban a restriction has been imposed upon the businessmen to carry out their business during a limited and particular period of time; that no such restriction is imposed by any other province as such this restriction is discriminatory for the purpose of Article 25 of the Constitution.
3. Conversely, learned Law Officer submits that through the impugned ban no fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed; that the State is empowered to impose certain restriction to regulate the rights of an individual; that each Provincial Government is independent to adopt any policy whichever it deems appropriate and the principle of discrimination cannot be stretched in the matter of uneven circumstances; that it is exclusively within the domain of the Provincial Government to regulate trade and business and maintain law and order situation in the province, therefore, if any restriction is imposed against anybody or institution to ensure safety of the general public, it cannot be declared as illegal.
4. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record.
5. No doubt Article 9 of the Constitution provides protection against deprivation of life and liberty of an individual and Article 18 of the Constitution guarantees right to every citizen of the country to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation but at the same time it is also to be borne in mind that no fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution is absolute and the State is empowered to impose certain "reasonable" restrictions to regulate these rights. Right of freedom of trade guaranteed by Article 18 of the Constitution is subject to lawful regulation and restriction. The Hon'ble apex Court in case of Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2011 SC 997) while defining term "lawful" has observed that "Lawful" qualifies the right of the citizen in the relevant field, which clearly envisages that State can by law ban a profession, occupation, trade or business by declaring the same to be unlawful which in common parlance means anything forbidden by law. Government has the authority to regulate a lawful business or trade." In case reported as Administrator, Market Committee, Kasur and 3 others v. Muhammad Sharif and others (1994 SCM R 1048) has been observed as under:- 'FR. No,18 permits a citizen to conduct any lawful trade and business but the Government may regulate the trade by a licensing system. Licensing system is itself a restrain on the trade but the Constitution empowers the Government to impose reasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions authorized by the Constitution do not negate the Constitutional rights of a citizen to do business unhindered without any condition. A reasonable classification is always considered to be within the framework of the fundamental right. Law may regulate the mode of carrying on business in a market place. There is no bar of exercise of the lawful trade but the interest of residents of the city should be guarded as a public policy. A right to do business does not guarantee a trader an uncontrolled privilege."
6. Theme behind issuance of impugned order is to save the public at large from the mischief which is likely to be occurred in the late night marriage functions. The right to life and liberty of a citizen could be restricted if it is in accordance with law. "Law" means that caters to larger public interest.
Therefore, fundamental right of an individual guaranteed under the Constitution can be surrendered to a lawful collective interest. In Pakistan Muslim League (N) through Khawaja Muhammad Asir M.N.A. And others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior and others (PLD 2007 SC 642) it has been observed as under:- "It is, however, to be noticed that right conferred upon a citizen is neither absolute nor unlimited but subject to "reasonable restriction" imposed by law in the public interest which means that this right can be restricted by imposing "reasonable restriction of law" in the public interest. In other words "the State has power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right of freedom of movement of a free citizen where such restriction is necessary in the interest of general public.
Thus the law restricting movement of prostitute in a part of the town, or restricting movements of a person under Goonda Act are reasonable restrictions. A restriction is unreasonable if it is for an indefinite or an unlimited period or disproportionate to the mischief sought to be prevented or if the law imposing the restrictions has not provided any safeguard at all against arbitrary exercise of power."
7. Similarly, in case reported as Abdul Hameed Qadri v. District Magistrate Lahore and another (PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lahore 213) it has been observed that "Surely, the danger to human life and safety and the disturbance of the public tranquility fall within the purview of expression "public order" and if an order is passed by the District Magistrate to prevent danger to human life and safety and the disturbance of public tranquility it is an order passed in the interest of public order within the meaning of Article 9 of the Constitution."
8. From the survey of above law it is quite clear that in order to preserve peace and tranquility of the public at large, the State is vested with power to impose certain reasonable restrictions on an individual.
9. Stance of the petitioner that no such restriction is imposed by any other province as such it is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution has also no substance. Each provincial government is to act independently in its constitutionally defined spheres of legislative and executive competence.
Therefore, any policy adopted by one province would provide no basis for determination of question of discrimination. Reliance is placed on Suo Motu action regarding regularization of the contract employees of Zakat Department as well as appointment of Chairman of Central Zakat Council (2013 SCM R 304) wherein it has been observed that "decision by one Province regarding any matter could not be cited as a ground for discrimination, if another Province did not make the same decision, since holding otherwise would be an intrusion into the autonomy of the Provinces."
10. It is the domain of the Provincial Government to regulate trade and business and at the same time to safeguard peace and tranquility of the general public. Late night functions are one of the major cause for disturbance of public peace and tranquility, therefore, if the government has taken any step in the larger interest of the public, it can in no manner be said to be an infringement of fundamental right of an individual. The restriction imposed appears to be valid and reasonable therefore, this Court is not inclined to intervene with the same in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
11. Resultantly, this petition being without any substance is dismissed.