' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner fixed the date of marriage ceremony of his son on 26-12-1997 and 'Waleema' on 27-12-1997. (Copy of invitation card is Annexure 'A'). Petitioner's counsel contended that petitioner's family has already invited guests about five hundred and also arranged to entertain them with the following menu:--
(1) Chicken Curry;
(2) Chicken/Mutter Pulao;
(3) Sweet dish comprising Hulwah/Zardah; and
(4) Cold drinks/Tea.
' The petitioner's counsel further contended that Government of Punjab has issued various Ordinances and instructions limiting the expenses of marriage ceremony and has prescribed only refreshment. In all these Ordinances, the word refreshment was not defined. He further contended that Members of Government party have been entertaining the guest with lavishing food and Government functionaries including Chief Minister have been attending such functions. He further argued that the action of the respondents is discriminatory qua the citizens of Pakistan. He further urged that local Police is harassing the petitioner and his family members. He also contended that similar controversy is pending at Principal Seat.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared on Court's call. He contended that writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner failed to bring on record the relevant Act and its number. He relied upon paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition which is to following effect:-- "That the Government of Punjab has issued various Ordinance and instructions about limiting the expenses of wedding ceremony and has prescribed only refreshment. However, no definition has given for refreshment."
' He further contended that general allegations of mala fide is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
The learned Assistant Advocate-General urged that in case the controversy is pending adjudication at Principal Seat, then writ petition may also be sent to Principal Seat. He further contended that petitioner has not challenged the vires of any Act and the competent body has framed the law under the provisions of the Constitution, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
He further contended that respondents shall not strictly in accordance with law. He further under instructions after the argument stated that Writ Petition No,131899 of 1997 (Marriage Hall Association v. Federation of Pakistan) was disposed of at the Principal Seat with the direction that respondents cannot taken action against the Citizens unless and until the Committees are not constituted under the law. The citizens who violate the law cannot be harassed but the names of the citizens who violate the law shall be noted. He further states under instructions that after the decision of the said writ petition de_ Government has constituted Committee in each and every District consisting of following Members:--
(i) M.P.A. Of the area;
(ii) Deputy Commissioner; and
(iii) District Attorney.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that Writ Petition No,131899 of 1997 "Marriage Hall Association v. Federation of Pakistan" which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Division Bench with the observation "that unless and until the Committees are not constituted the citizens who violate the law cannot be harassed" but their names shall be noted by the concerned public functionaries.
Since the Government has constituted the Committees for each and every District consisting of following members, therefore, that restraint has automatically ceased to exist.
(i) M.P.A. Of the area;
(ii) Deputy Commissioner; and
(iii) District Attorney.
' It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Division Bench did not grant any stay order in the said writ petition. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of Marriage (Prohibition of Wasteful Expenses) Act, No,XXI of 1997 which are as under: "Section 2(a) Committee means an Ehtesab Committee constituted under section 6; and
3. Prohibition of ostentatious celebrations.--- (1) Subject to subsection (2) no person celebrating his marriage or the marriage of any other person shall--
(a) decorate or cause to be decorated any house or building including any space appertaining thereto, street, road or other place whether owned by him or otherwise with lights or illumination; or
(b) explode or allow any one to explode cracker or other explosive device including firing by fire- arms; or
(c) display or allow any one to display fire works.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall prohibit the use of such lights as are ordinarily necessary to lit the house or any other place being the site of marriage.
4. Restriction on wasteful expenses.---(1) No person celebrating his or the marriage of any other person shall serve or allow any one to serve meals or other edibles to the persons participating in the marriage in a club, hotel, restaurant, wedding hall, community centre, or any other public place except hot and cold soft drinks.
(5) Application of the Ordinance to hotels restaurants, etc.---No person owning or running a hotel, restaurant, wedding hall community centre, or club being the site of a marriage ceremony or any caterer shall serve or allow anyone to serve any meals or edibles to the persons participating in the marriage ceremony other than hot and cold soft drinks.
(6) Committees for Prohibition of wasteful expenses on Marriages.---The Provincial Government shall, by Notification in the official Gazette, constitute an Ehtesab Committee for each sub-division, tehsil or taluka which shall, in accordance with the rules made under this Act, be responsible for implementation of the provisions of this Act.
8. Cognizance of Offences.---No Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint in writing by the Committee."
The Legislature has framed the law keeping in view the social problems of the country. In fact lavish arrangement on the marriage ceremony created a discrimination qua the poor people. The poor people are not in a position to arrange such type of lavish arrangement. Consequently, they left disgrace by the act of the rich, which is not permissible in the Injunctions of Islam; in other words in each country where poverty has manifest and majority of people are living without basic necessities of life, the steps for the adoption of austerity are imperative. These steps are also essential to have economic prosperity and social well being. The element of dissonance can only be eliminated between "Have and Have not", if such type of laws are promulgated and enforced with full rigour and vigour. Moreover, Islamic Laws should be implemented for the well-fare of the people at large. The spirit of Islamic Laws envisages welfare state and this can be achieved and maintained by discouraging the people from wasting food stuff and exceeding from the resources of a common man for the purpose to avoid disgrace of the poor for public good. This is the golden principle of Islamic and the law is in accordance with Qur'anic Injunction. Since there is no classification, therefore, it is not in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The legislatures are bound to act and frame the law keeping in view the will of the people who are real sovereign to elect them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is against the Injunctions of Islam has no force. In fact Islam has laid down a principle of equity and turn convert the whole Society of the world on right path and the relevant observation is as follows:--(1997 CLC 1308).
"12. The concept of equality amongst the mankind was introduced for the first time by Islam. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) preached and practised equality throughout the life and sermon delivered on the occasion of last Hajj performed by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is the first landmark in the history of mankind. It was made clear for all times to come that there is no difference amongst the individuals on the basis of race, colour and territory. The relevant portion reads as under:-- "16. The Holy Prophet (peace be -upon him) said in his address at the Hyjjat-ul-Wida {{URDU TEXT}} the last Hajj, performed by him, that:-- ' People, hear me, your Lord is one and your father is one. No Arab has any superiority over a non- Arab, nor any Arab over an Arab nor any white man over a black man, nor a black, man over a white man, save in respect of piety and fear of Allah."
13. The Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1991 shows that Injunctions of Islam are supreme and other laws have to give way to the principles of Shari'ah. The relevant portion of section 3 reads as under:-- "3.Supremacy of Shari'ah.---The Shari that is to say the Injunctions of Islam as laid in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah, shall be the supreme law of Pakistan."
Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel that Government parties, personalities are violating the law will not provide ground for the petitioner to violate the law. In such situation the petitioner can approach the Committee to take action against the persons are violating the law. It is the prerogative of the competent forum i,e, to frame the law under the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle in Fauji Foundations's case (PLD 1983 SC 157) and the relevant observations is an under:-- "The legal justification for issuing a legislative instrument is a matter solely within the competent of Legislature or the law giver. It is not one which can be judicially reviewed as will appear from the discussion which follows elsewhere in the judgment."
' In the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the power of judicial review of Courts which are as follows:-- "Therefore, when a Court, which is a creature of the Constitution itself, examines the vires of an Act, its powers are limited to examining the legislative competence or to such other limitations as are in the Constitution; and while declaring a legislative instrument as void, it is not because the judicial power is superior in degree or dignity to the legislative power' but because it enforces the Constitution as a paramount law either where a legislative instrument is in conflict with the Constitutional provision so as to give effect to it or where the Legislature fails to keep within its Constitutional limits.
68. Clearly, therefore, the scope of judicial review is confined to the enforcement of the Constitution as supreme law. Aside from the inherent prerogative to interpret the Constitution, its purpose is corrective or directory, and extends to determining the legality of an administrative action and in relation thereto the Constitutionality of the legislation."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mian Nawaz Sharif's case (PLD 1993 SC 473) has laid down a principle that is the prerogative of the Ruling party to implement its programme in accordance and its manifesto. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "In British politics the 'doctrine of mandate' signifies that the party which wins the general election has the right to implement its programmer. In fact it is true of every country following Parliamentary democracy. If a party attaining power fails to give effect to its manifesto it may be accused of deluding the electorate in catching, the votes. It may be observed that for an effective functioning of a political system, the dominant institutions catered thereby though geared by the idea of contemporary social attitudes must be oblivious of moral and historical aspirations of the nation. The reasons being that neither Constitutional principles nor political attitudes can properly be appreciated without understanding their roots in the historical experiences of the society. In this behalf the Objectives Resolution (Art.2A) represents such attitudes, ethos, and values behind our Constitution, which is so far as relevant for the purposes of this case is reproduced below:- ' Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social economic and political justice and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality' ."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the Act nor the contents of the writ petition reveal on which ground the same has been challenged without mentioning the provisions of the Act and number of the Act. It is evident from para.3 of the writ petition which has been mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not bring on record any specific allegation of mala fide or any malice or violation of any Government functionaries or Government party. The general allegation of mala fide is not sustainable in the eyes of law as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Saeed Ahmed's case (PLD 1974 SC 151) and Aman Ullah's case (PLD 1990 SC 1092). On the basis of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution has jurisdiction to declare the laws bad in law; in case the law was not framed by the competent body or in violation of Chapter 2 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the law was not framed by the competent body and is liable to be set aside on account of violation of any fundamental right. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable; I am fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (1984 SCM R 433), Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education's case and the relevant:-- "The maintainability of the writ petition itself was also assailed on the ground that no rule of the Board having been violated, the issuing of a writ would amount to an interference with the internal autonomy and functioning of the Board."
' Anyhow the respondents are directed to act strictly in accordance with law. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.