Through the instant Intra Court Appeal, filed under Section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, the Appellant has called in question the legality of impugned order dated 09..10.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.13803/2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the wires of the Punjab Prohibition of Expressing Matters on Walls Act, 1995 (the "Act") being voilative of fundamental rights of the Appellant guaranteed under Articles 4, 8, 19 and 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution").
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the infringement of fundamental rights of the Appellant guaranteed by the Constitution; that this fact has also been ignored by the learned Single Judge that the Act does not allow type of expression on the walls etc., therefore liable to be declared ultra vires.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Appellant and perused the record.
4. From the perusal of record it reveals that the Appellant has mainly challenged the vires of the Act. The Appellant had appended with the writ petition only copies of the FIRs registered under the Act as well as copies of the Act and its amendment. It is to be noted here that the said FIRs have been registered against the workers of the Appellant for violation of the provisions of the Act. The Appellant as well as the accused of the FIRs have the alternate remedy against the action done before the appropriate forum but instead of resorting to the same, the Act ' has been challenged through the writ petition.
5. The Appellant has challenged the Act alleging to be violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed by the Constitution and contended that the impugned Act is completely silent regarding the matter of expression. In this regard it is stated that under Section 2 of the Act wherein along with the restrictions, exception has also been given. The bare perusal of the said exception explicitly shows that it shall not be an offence under this Section, if the owner or possessor of the wall expresses any particulars relating to himself or his business thereon. But in the present case none else but the Appellant himself admitted that they belong to a non-registered organization and the workers of the Appellant were booked by the Respondent No.5 under Section 2 of the Act for wall chalking and pasting of banners etc.; meaning thereby that Appellant is allegedly campaigning of raising awareness about the menaces in the masses/public at large against the Raiba, corruption and obscenity etc. by wall chalking and using banners with translation of Quranic Verses along with other quotations to express the view. Admittedly, where the Appellant is expressing his views by affixing posters writing on walls, are neither the property of the Appellant or his workers rather they are doing such on the public or Government. property. As such, they do not fall within the domain of said exception, therefore, they were booked in violation of the said section.
Hence, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the provision of the Act clearly prohibits such a course of action on the part of any person wherever he chooses to do so and the simple reason for this is that there has to be a regulation with regard to the freedom of speech and expression.
Unless speech and expression is regulated, there would be a complete and absolute chaos in the society and it would be difficult to distinguish whether certain speech ought to be permitted and the other prohibited.
6. Moreover, the contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the provisions of the Act are violative of Articles of the Constitution is not instructive. Because Article 19 of the Constitution, no doubt, given every citizen right of freedom of speech and expression but subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. Similarly, there is no denial that the Article 4 of the Constitution guaranteed right to every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law. The proceedings against the workers of the Appellant were duly initiated as per law, therefore, the Appellant cannot said, to be treated in violation of any fundamental rights. No law can be declared to be ultra vires mere on the whims and wishes of any person when he is being proceeded under the same in violation thereof. As such, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge who in the impugned order has observed that Article 19 of the Constitution makes the right to freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law inter alia in the interest of the glory of Islam, public order, decency or morality.
7. No one can be let at liberty to use the property, either private or Government, without prior permission because where the law guaranteed the rights of the Appellant, it also protects the rights of the other side i.e. private persons and Government by not allowing anyone to use their property without any prior permission. Therefore, we fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that if the Appellant is entitled to undertake such an act without a proper permission from the Government of the Punjab, this would give a license to other persons to follow suit and to express an opinion that he presumes is right and to fill public walls with all kinds of advertisement and manners of expression.
8. The learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. We, therefore, fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge who has rightly dismissed the writ petition. The impugned order does not call for any interference by us which has rightly been passed in consonance with the spirit of law.
9. In view of above, the instant appeal, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine.