1. ' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---The relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is holding an Account bearing No,C.S. A/C 1793 in the Habib Bank Limited, Queens Road Branch, Sukkur. The Habib Bank Limited is a nationalized bank under section 5 of Act XIX of 1974 (Banks Nationalization Act, 1974). According to the petitioner, the reputation of Habib Bank Limited is better than other several Banks as it provides security, facility, gentle and helping staff and services at door. It is further stated that there are international financing companies namely World Bank and. International Monetary Fund who impose their conditionalities while giving loan to the Government of Pakistan. According to the petitioner, the Habib Bank Limited, Queens Road Branch, Sukkur is situated in a Posh area of Sukkur city where very important personalities have their easy approach including their families who feel more secure, safe and as such have their locker facilities in the said Branch. It is further stated that on 24-5-2001, a letter has been issued by Vice-President and Regional General Manager Operation and Support Services, Habib Bank Limited, Sukkur informing respondent No,6 Manager, Habib Bank Limited, Queens Road Branch, Sukkur that the competent Authority has decided to close Habib Bank Limited, Queens Road Branch, Sukkur with effect from 16-6-2001 and the said Branch is being merged with Frere Road Branch, Sukkur. It is further stated in the petition that this decision has been taken in pursuance of policy decision to close 234 Branches of Habib Bank Limited all over Pakistan. It is averred that Habib Bank Limited, Queens Road Branch, Sukkur is a profit earning Branch providing facilities to such respectable citizens and gentry of the Queens Road as S.S.P. Office, D.S.Ps, Deputy Commissioner Office, Railway Headquarter employees, Saint Mary's High School employees, APWA and more than one hundred Advocates and Doctors of Civil Hospital. Sukkur and other white collared persons. It is further contended that the Frere Road Branch of the Habib Bank Limited is in thickly-populated bazaar having no facility of parking and it would be difficult particularly for the ladies to approach the said Branch. It is further contended that Frere Road Branch is running in losses since last 10 years, The petitioner has contended that the order of shifting Queens Road Branch and merging thereof with the Frere Road Branch is mala fide and against the public interest, illegal and without lawful authority.
2. ' The petitioner has, therefore, sought declaration to the effect that the orders passed for shifting/merging of Queens Road Branch of Habib Bank Limited with Frere Road Branch of Habib Bank Limited, Sukkur is against public interest, mala fide, void and without lawful authority. Further, writ of prohibition has been sought restraining the implementation of the above orders, ' On the point of maintainability of the petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Syed Wajih-ul-Hasan Zaidi v. Government of Punjab 1997 SCM R 1901, wherein it has been held that the purpose of Constitutional provisions relating to judicial review is to foster justice and elimirate possibility of perpetuating illegality. The principal object underlying judicial review of orders passed or actions taken by administrative or quasi-judicial forums is to respect law and enforce supremacy of Constitution. It has been further held that there is no doubt that the writ jurisdiction is completely discretionary in nature and can be invoked to combat blatant illegalities; total lack of jurisdiction, unwarranted exercise of authority otherwise not vested by law or preventing retention of ill-gotten gains. According to Honourable Supreme Court the purpose of exercising such authority is corrective and directory, which has to be tampered with equity. The relevant facts of the cited case were that property styled as S.P. House situated in Civil Lines, Jhelum was evacuee property. Syed Wajih-ul-Hassan Zaidi the appellant took over possession of aforementioned S.P. House, from Muhammad Azam Qazi in October, 1959, when posted in the capacity of Superintendent of Police, Jhelum. Record recalled that being claimant and displaced person, he submitted C.H. Form as envisaged by Settlement Scheme. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum issued Provisional Transfer Order in favour of the appellant but ultimately when the appellant pursued the matter for issuance of permanent Transfer-Deed, with regard to S.P. House, it revealed that no valid order for transfer of open land in excess of three times the plinth area of S.P. House had been passed in his favour. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner while processing case for issuance of PTD reported to Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner asserting that file relating to transfer of said bungalow was not traceable. The record produced by the claimant disclosed transfer of S.P. House, Jhelum to him. It was contended by the appellant that PTD was issued in his favour. Ultimately the matter was taken up by Additional Settlement Commissioner. The order of Additional Settlement Commissioner was challenged by appellant by way of writ before Lahore High Court which was partly accepted and the case was re-adjudicated by the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, Government of Punjab filed writ petition which was also partly accepted. The appellant preferred intra-Court appeal which was dismissed and ultimately the matter was taken up to Honourable Supreme Court.
4. ' In the above background the Honourable Supreme Court observed that although after issuance of PTD Settlement Authorities became functus officio and property on the basis of transfer documents exclusively vests in the claimant but this proposition has been assessed in juxtaposition, in the context whether finality could be attached to inherently defective order passed by Authority having absolutely no jurisdiction completely misconstruing the legal and factual aspects by violently contravening law or rules applicable at the relevant time. Thus, the ratio of the cited judgment is to be considered in the background of facts as narrated above where the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the authorities concerned completely violated the provisions of law.
5. ' The second judgment on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance is in the case of Mazhar lqbal v. University of Punjab. Lahore, 1992 CLC 1158. Mr. Abdul Fatah has placed reliance on the observation by the learned Single Judge that action taken by Executive Authority must fulfil test of reasonableness. It was held that where discretion had been exercised unreasonably or irrationally, order passed or action taken was liable to be struck down.
6. The relevant facts in this case were that the University of Punjab prescribed different syllabous for Regular and Private students of M.Sc. Part-1 (Mathematics). The action taken by the University was held by the learned Single Judge to be discriminatory and consequently unreasonable and illogical. Such whimsical and unreasonable act was held to be hit by provision of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. ' Third judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is in the case of Ghulam Akbar v. Deputy Commissioner, Dadu PLD 1997 Karach 355. In this case it has been held with reference to the public interest litigation that conversion of Community Center into hotel by District Council was against the public interest and therefore, such action was an illegal exercise of authority.
8. ' The last judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Municipal Corporation 1998 M LD 474$ In this case learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that liberal interpretation of term "aggrieved person" should be given. In the cited case the leaseholder rights of collecting the sewerage fee and sanitation fee as well as water rate for the Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi was given without proper advertisement as required under the rules. In the cited case the advertisement was given for auction on 18-6-1997, but the auction was conducted on 23-6-1997. The said auction was assailed in the writ petition for additional reason that the auction proceedings were also not transparent as the highest bid was changed from Rs,3,05,00,000 to Rs,3,25,00,Q00 without any further auction and in a secret manner.
9. The proceedings were, therefore, held to be illegal and re-auction was directed in a transparent manner.
10. ' Now coming to the facts of the present case, I find that no illegality, excess of jurisdiction, unreasonableness, illogical policy decision has been pointed out in the petition. The sole grievance is that the Queens Road Branch is providing facilities to white collared persons and so-called VIPs as well as to the Advocates. Doctors and Bureaucrats. It is contended that the said account holders shall feel difficulties in approaching the Frere Road Branch. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not able to deny that the account holders have always an option to close their accounts in any Branch and to open the account in any Bank and in any Branch of their own choice. At the same time, the Banks who are in business for all purposes whether in private sector or public sector have the right to conduct their business in any manner they like. Article 18 of the Constitution provides freedom of trade, business or profession subject to qualification if any as may be prescribed by law. Nothing has been pointed out to show that while taking a policy decision of closing the Queens Road Branch and shifting/merging the same with the Frere Road Branch, the competent authorities have violated any law for the time being in force. When the Constitution gives the fundamental right of freedom of trade, business or profession it envisages the right to do the lawful business, trade or profession and to manage the same in the way deemed fit by an individual, company, corporation, statutory body or Government controlled corporations and statutory bodies. The only restriction which can be placed on trade or business is to conduct the business in accordance with law of the land. So long any person, which includes anybody politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of the Federal Government or of a Provincial Government as defined in Article 199 (5) of the Constitution, is managing and arranging its business in accordance with law of the land, and in the present case relevant law is Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, no exception can be taken. The Banking business is controlled in Pakistan by the Banking Control Department of State Bank of Pakistan under the provisions of State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 and the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. Prudential regulations are issued by the State Bank of Pakistan and necessary directions/instructions are issued from time to time by the State Bank of Pakistan and a Branch of Bank is also opened with the concurrence of the State Bank of Pakistan. Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides that the regulation of any trade or profession shall be in accordance with the licensing system and the regulation of trade, commerce or industry shall be in interest of free competition therein. It means that the Banks are required to regulate their business in accordance with the licensing system and in a way that no monopoly is acquired by any Bank. In addition to these restrictions, No other restriction has been placed by Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
11. ' The contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that it is a public interest litigation and, therefore, the action taken by the Competent authorities of the Habib Bank Limited should be considered on the touchstone of the public interest litigation. The public interest litigation is in fact an aspect of judicial activism and the Courts while resorting to judicial activism are not supposed to ignore the Constitutional provisions for the reason that while resorting to judicial activism the Courts are required to keep in view the principle of judicial restraint as well.
12. The concept of judicial activism is neither supra Constitutional nor envisages any act or relief in express or blatant violation of the Constitutional provisions and fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. A balance is to be struck off and the superior Courts are required to see that if any corporate body or statutory authority functions in such a way that it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or the amenities provided to the citizens are taken away or environment is polluted or the amenities or good environment is not provided which affects the right of life which means the right of meaningful life or the public at large or needy, poor and downtrodden sections of the Society are deprived of an amenity, facility, convenience or public at large is deprived of any benefit or general good, the Superior Courts in exercise of their Constitutional jurisdiction shall always be prepared to intervene and interfere in order to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. In doing so, the Superior Courts shall always be prepared to resort to and exercise their epistolary as well as suo motu jurisdiction, ignoring the hyper technicalities in order to ensure speedy and easy dispensation of justice and enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution in letter and spirit. However, as put by John Stuart Mill, while propounding his theory of liberty, a person's right to move his stick shall end from the point where the nose of other person starts. Thus, while considering the plea of public interest litigation, the Superior Courts are required to see that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution, are not violated but are protected as observed by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Syed Wajih-ulHassan Zaidi v.
13. Government of Punjab (Supra). While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 199. The superior Courts are required to see that respect for law and enforcement of the supremacy of the Constitution is observed.
14. 'If the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is accepted that the Habib Bank Limited should not be permitted to shift/merge Queens Road Branch simply because it is providing facilities/services to some so-called VIPs and whitecollar persons, it would mean that the bureaucrats, the VIPs and white collared persons are superior to the other citizens of this country or at least they are more equal and the common citizens are less equal. This is absolutely against the spirit of the Constitution, democracy and the Islamic concept of the human dignity and equality of the citizens. The relief sought further places curb on the freedom of trade and business which is guaranteed under the Constitution and is to be governed under the licensing system provided in the law only.
15. ' For the foregoing reasons we are not persuaded to admit the petition for regular hearing, which stands dismissed in limine.