Undeniably , the appellant is proprietor of Haweli Marriage Hall and BBQ Restaurant at G.T. Road, Dina, Jhelum.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on 21.03.2018 visited the same and found it to be deficient with the fire safety measures, as such they closed the premises with metal wires compelling the former to approach this Court through Writ Petition No.928-2018 and vide order dated 30.03.2018 the same was entertained while observing as under:- Learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab, in attendance on Court's call in receipt of copy of this petition, shall seek instructions so as to assist the Court. Seemingly reckless invocation of penal provisions in the backdrop of alleged violation under Sections, 5,8 of the Punjab Marriage Function Act, 2016 is not sustainable. Learned Law Officer shall take up the matter with Deputy Commissioner as well as District Police Officer , Jhelum to ensure that official authority is not abused.
Thereafter , on 14.04.2018 notice was served upon the appellant and to call in question its vires W.P.No.1286-2018 was preferred by him, which was declined on 09.05.2018 by the learned single Judge in Chamber while imposing cost of Rs.50,000/- as well as to seal the premises of appellant besides lodging of a criminal case against him, which is under challenge of this Appeal.
2. Inaugurally , it was emphasized by learned counsel for the appellant that Respondent No. 1 being offended from the orders dated 30.03.2018 reproduced above while misusing his official authority issued notice for sealing the premises of the appellant and destroyed his business, which was being run for the last many years, whereas from the very first day all safety measures were adopted to protect it from fire. It is also added by him that in fact the gratification demanded by Respondent No. 2 was refused to be paid by the appella nt and Respondent No. 1 being his tool just to harass and humiliate the appellant issued the process for sealing his property , which being illegal, erroneous and contrary to law was not sustainable, but learned single Judge in Chamber without taking into consideration the said backdrop of the situation erred in law to pass the impugned judgment in a hasty manner .
On the other side learned Law Of ficer supported the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of this Appeal.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Undisputedly , the fundamental rights of each and every citizen of the State are protected under Articles 9, 14, 18 and 23 to 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. There is no ambiguity that no one is above the law and cannot take advantage of his position or status to infringe the rights as well as liberty of the people, whereas every authority while discharging its functions is bound to act fairly, justly and in accordance with law, thus any act in derogation of the mandate of the law cannot be protected. The learned Law Officer after going through the provisions of the Civil Defence (Special Powers) Rules, 1951 was not in a position to say that Respondent No. 1 had authority to issue subject notice for sealing of the property of the appellant. The possibility cannot be ruled out that just to take revenge of the filing of earlier Writ Petition before this Court and the orders passed therein the appellant was issued the n notice to teach him a lesson, but learned single Judge in Chamber without realizing this aspect of the case passed the impugned judgment, which is not sustainable. Resultantly , this Appeal succeeds, judgment impugned herein is set aside and while allowing W.P.No.1286-2018, the notice questioned thereunder issued by Respondent No. 1 being without any legal back is also quashed. However , if the safety measures are still found to be deficient at spot, then the concerned competent Authority may initiate fresh proceedings as warranted under the law , rules/policy , but with prior notice to the appellant in this regard.