RAWALPINDI: Lahore High Court (LHC) Rawalpindi bench on Wednesday dismissed the petition against the ban imposed on kite-flying, pigeon homing and firing in jubilation.

LHC Justice Jawad Hassan dismissed the petition observing “The Court is expected to enforce fundamental rights reasonably and not in a manner which creates hurdles and unnecessary complications.”

The petitioner Mehtab Ahmed challenged the ban imposed on kite flying as well as on pigeon homing and firing in the air near the airbase.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that the main grievance of his client was to the extent of ban on pigeon homing, which is a hobby of distinct nature and cannot be harmful for human life.

He further submitted that it is the cultural right of the petitioner to fly pigeon and he is also earning money from this hobby, therefore, his fundamental right of livelihood as guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution, has been infringed upon.

At this juncture, law officer of the government has objected to the maintainability of this petition by relying on the dictum laid down by the LHC Rawalpindi bench in the case of Syed Faisal Mehboob versus Federation of Pakistan in which issue regarding construction of highrise buildings within the limits of the New Islamabad International Airport was raised and the court while exercising the Doctrine of Judicial Restraint, restrained the authority concerned from passing any injunctive order for the welfare of the country, national security and the safety of lives of millions of the people.

In response, Malik Akhtar Ijaz Awan, counsel for the petitionerreiterated his aforesaid submissions but he added that the petitioner would be satisfied if the matter be referred to the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division to decide the same in accordance with law within a shortest possible time.

The court perused the relevant judgements and noted that “the High Court appears to have arbitrarily interfered in a policy matters which it should have been reluctant to do considering that such matters concern complex factors which have a direct impact on the economy of the country. … The responsibility of the Court is limited to legal interpretation.”

He observed that “the Court is expected to enforce fundamental rights reasonably and not in a manner which creates hurdles and unnecessary complications.…”

“Moreover, the scope of the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel has further been strengthened by this Court in the cases of Mohammad Umais versus Cantonment Board Rawalpindi and others… by setting certain principles on judicial restraint” said the court order.

Subsequently, the court ruled: “In view of the principles already settled by this Court in the cases cited above, no direction can be issued to Respondent No.2 [commissioner] as prayed for by learned counsel for the Petitioner.”

However, the Petitioner may, on his own move, approach the authority concernedfor the redressal of his grievance and if he do so, then the matter will, of course, be decided by the said authority strictly as per law within a timely fashion, the court order said.

Justice Hassan finally declared the petition as not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.

Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2024