1. Urgency granted.
2. 2-5. This petition has been filed challenging the Notification dated 09.06.2017 issued by the Home Secretary Sindh wherein a ban has been imposed on the sale and purchase of toy guns in province of Sindh for the period of 60 days with immediate effect.
3. Mr. Jawaid Ahmed Chhatari, counsel for the petitioner states that since there is a freedom of trade as per Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) hence no ban could be imposed and in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision given by a Single Judge in the case of K.B. Threads (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and others v.
4. Zila Nazim, Lahore (Amir Mehmood) and others (PLD 2004 Lahore 376).
5. Perusal of the record clearly reveals that the said ban was imposed since the same was causing grievous injuries and negative impact on the minds of small children and it has also come on the record that toy guns have been used by the robbers for committing street crimes and other crimes and in order to curb this menace the said action was taken by the Home Secretary Sindh. In our view since the action taken by the respondents was with noble cause i.e. not to allow small children for playing with the toy guns so that no negative impact could be created in their minds and also with the objective that since the ratio of the street crimes in Karachi is increasing day by day by banning the toy guns the same would be minimized. Hence, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner to declare the Notification as null'and void, in view of the present situation of Karachi, appears to be unwarranted. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that this ban, at present, appears to be for a period of 60 days only. Furthermore, we also do not agree with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of Article 18 of the Constitution the petitioner may be allowed to sell the toy guns. Perusal of Article-18 clearly stipulates that the said Article allows a citizen to carry on a lawful trade or business but that would be subject to certain qualifications and this right is not an absolute right but is subject to certain regulations. Since in the instant Notification a ban has been imposed with the prime objective not to allow small children the use of toy guns to save them from causing grievous injuries and A negative effect on their minds and also with the objective to curb the menace of street crimes, which are quite rampant in the city, we see no justification to declare the said Notification as null and void, especially in view of rational behind it. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is found be quite distinguishable from the facts obtaining in the instant petition.
6. It is a settled principle of law that rights and guarantees under the Articles must be exercised subject to reasonable qualifications and regulations. Though it has been averred by the counsel for the petitioner that inconvenience has been caused to the petitioner but, in our view, that inconvenience could not partake the interest of the community, since interest of the community has to be given preference over the rights of an individual. Perusal of the Notification clearly reveals that the same has been issued by keeping in view the certain objectives not to allow the children toy guns to save them from causing grievous injuries and negative effects of their mind and also not to have an easy access of the robbers committing street crimes by using toy guns.
7. We were able to lay our hands on a decision given in the case of Pakistan Muslim League (N) through Khawaja Muhammad Asif M.N.A. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Interior and others, reported as PLD 2007 SC 642, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed as under:-- "The fundamental rights can neither be treated lightly nor interpreted in a casual or cursory manner but while interpreting Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a cardinal principle has always to be borne in mind that these guarantees to individuals are subject to the overriding necessity or interest of community. A balance has to be struck between these rights of individuals and the interest of the community. If in serving the interests of the community, an individual or number of individuals have to be put to some inconvenience and loss by placing restrictions on some of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the restrictions can never be considered to be unreasonable."
8. The above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in our view, are the complete answer of the apprehension of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 18 of the Constitution, which in the present case, in our view, are not available to him.
9. We, therefore, under the circumstances, find absolutely no merit in the instant petition and dismiss the same in limine along with the listed applications.