Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4681
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain)
Parties: SYED MUJEEB ALI GILLANI vs PROVINCE OF PB. ETC.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4681. In this matter between SYED MUJEEB ALI GILLANI and PROVINCE OF PB. ETC., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain) DECISION DATE: 30-06-2026 TAGLINE: The licence governing procession at Imam Bargah No.338/B-II, Mohallah Aam Khaas, Bahawalpur was admittedly issued in 1935 and, after death of license holder in year 2003, peaceful procession continued for few years, whereafter the dispute arose between the parties qua person lawfully entitled to carry out the same and on the application of one of the stakeholders (respondent No.5) matter was placed, at the direction of this Court in W.P. No.4201 of 2020, before Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of the Punjab and through impugned order, without hearing the petitioner, the licence has been restored in the name of deceased licence holder. Held. ? It has been held that while examining the role of the Police Department under the Police Order 2002 ("Police Order"), the Deputy Commissioner under the Punjab Civil Administration Act, 2017 ("the Act") alongwith Provincial Notification dated 26.12.2006 and Federal Recommendations dated 27.01.2005 imposing ban on grant of fresh licences for religious procession. ? That the license for religious procession is not heritable albeit once the original licence holder is no longer alive, the impugned order not only left the parties in limbo without determining as to who is legally entitled to conduct and regulate the procession but thousands of participants of said procession and therefore, matter needs to be re-examined. ? That neither the Act nor the Police Order or the executive instructions presently holding the field appear to address the legal consequences arising upon the demise of an original licence holder or prescribe any transparent mechanism for regulating the continuation of a historical religious observance in such circumstances. ? That a licence, by its very nature, is a regulatory permission granted by the competent authority to undertake an act which, in the absence of such permission, would not be permissible and an interpretation of the Provincial Notification as imposing an absolute and perpetual embargo upon the grant of every future licence or renewal would, therefore, appear to be inconsistent with the very concept of a licensing regime and the statutory discretion conferred upon the competent authority. CASE DETAILS: Writ Petition-Religion-License of Tazia 5411-22 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38. JUDGMENT SHEET LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH BAHAWALPUR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P. No.5411 of 2022
Syed Mujeeb Ali Gillani vs. Province of Punjab, etc.
J U D G M E N T Date of Hearing: 30.06.2026 Petitioner by: Mr. A. R. Aurangzeb, Advocate. Respondents No.1 to 4 by Mr. Zafar Iqbal Awan, Addl. Advocate General alongwith Syed Hassan Raza, Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, Dr. Ayesha Khan, ADC(G), Raja Khurram Zaka, Incharge Security, DPO Office, Muhammad Ahmad SI/SHO, Kotwali and Muhammad Arshad, ASI. Respondent No.5 by: Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate. Applicant in C.M. Nos.3693 and 3694 of 2022 by: Mr. Muhammad Naveed Farhan, Advocate. Mr. Muhammad Nasir Khan Pahore, Advocate.
Anwaar Hussain, J. Through this constitutional petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Punjab whereby on representation of respondent No.5 , namely, Syed Hussain Ali Shah, the licence was restore d in the name of Syed Hassan Ali Shah ( ―the deceased licence holder ‖) admittedly the predecessor of the petitioner, respondent No.5, namely, Syed Hussain Ali Shah, and Syed Khadim Ali (“the applicant‖), who filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3693 of 2022, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , to be impleaded as party being son of the deceased licence holder.
2 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
However, the controversy raised transcends the inter se dispute between the rival claimants. It requires this Court to examine the legal nature of a licence issued for carrying out a religious procession during the holy month of Muharram-ul-Haram and the consequences from the demise of its original holder. 2. Therefore, the legal character of a licence issued for religious procession; the role of Police Department under Article 120 of the Police Order, 2002 (―the Order, 2002 ‖); the effect of executive policy instructions issued by the Federal and Provincial Governments , from time to time , for regulating Muharram-ul-Haram processions; and the manner in which the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 20 1 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (―the Constitution‖) is to be examined and harmonized with the State ’s obligation to maintain public order and internal security. When the case was heard on 16.06.2026, it was noted that this petition has been pending for the last 4 years and during its pendency, as many as on three previous occasions of Muharram -ul-Haram, the parties made a concessional arrangement after executing an agreement and the parties were directed to adhere to the same arrangement so that the matter can be heard in detail and adjudicated in accordance with the applicable law. 3. Factual background of the case is that the licen ce pertains to the procession at Iman Bargah No.338/B-II, Mohallah Aam Khaas, Bahawalpur. The petitioner asserts that the said licence was issued in the year 1935, in favour of the deceased licence holder, whereafter procession has been carried out at the prescribed route, which contention has not been refuted by the respondents . The record further reveals that after the demise of the deceased licence holder, no express
1 Freedom to profess religion and to manage religious institutions . Subject to law, public order and morality,—(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and (b ) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.
3 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
licence/permission exists in favour of any individual, including Syed Roshan Ali Shah, the decea sed son of the original licence holder and father of the petitioner. Respondent No.5 disputes the authenticity of subsequent entries, inter alia, qua permission in favour of the father of the petitioner, and alleges fraud and interpolation thereof and supp orts the impugned order in this regard . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.5 had earlier adopted a similar stance and, on his challenge, this Court in W.P. No.4201 of 2020 remitted the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Punjab, who passed the impugned order restoring the licence in favour of the deceased licence holder, without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence, on this ground alone the same is liable to be set aside . In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon case reported as Mst. Faiz Mai v. Home Secretary and others2. C.M. No.3693 of 2022 for impleadment has been also opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the applicant had earlier filed W.P. No.6 366 of 2021, claiming a Will in his favour from the deceased licence holder, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.08.2021, and has thereafter instituted a civil suit seeking declaration on the basis of the same alleged Will. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the applicant lacks locus standi to participate in the present proceedings. 4. Conversely, l earned Law Officer along with the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur while referring to the role of Home Department under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 (―Rules of Business ‖) as well as guidelines issued by the Home Department regarding Zuljinah procession through notification dated 26.12.20063 (―Provincial Notification‖) contend that there is complete
2 (PLD 2017 Lahore 896) 3 No. SO (IS -III) 6 -25/2006 GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, HOME DEPARTMENT, DATED LAHORE, the 26 th December, 2006 TO 1. The Provincial Police Officer, Punjab, Lahore. 2. All District Coordination Officers in the Punjab. 3. All District Police Officers in the
4 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
ban imposed, on issuance of the new licen ce, by the Chief Minister Punjab; and that once the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), has restored the historical licence, the Deputy Commissioner cannot assume a jurisdiction inconsistent with the said decision. It is fur ther contended that any broader determination regarding the legal status or future of such historical licences is essentially a matter of government policy and cannot appropriately be undertaken by a Deputy Commissioner, at the district level, while deciding the fate of the licence restored in the name of the deceased licence holder. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the continuance of the arrangement in the previous years as well as this year had been facilitated through preventive meas ures adopted by the local administration, such as the placement of certain stakeholders including respondent No.5 under house arrest, which is indicative that the underlying controversy continues to subsist and requires authoritative determination not only for the purpose of this case but in larger public interest as every year, the issue of granting permission to hold procession during Muharram-ul-Haram is turned down in a mechanical manner by exclusively relying on executive instruction in terms of the Provincial Notification and Federal recommendations4 made by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan through letter dated 27.01.2005 (―Federal Recommendations‖), issued nearly two decades
Punjab. Subject: - GUIDELINES REGARDING ZULJINAH PROCESSION. The following instructions/guidelines are reiterated for peaceful observance of Zuljinah processions. a) According to Ministry of Interior’s letter No.4/10/2005 -Poll.I (2) dated 27.01.2005 (copy enclosed) ―No change from practices of the previous years be permitted and every religious observances should be carried out exactly in the same manner as in the past with respect to timings and routes of the processions etc.‖ b) According to Chief Minister’s Secretariat’s letter No.ASG/CMS/05/OT-4/67656, dated February 11, 2005, ―Chief Minister has desired that no new licence be issued for any Zuljinnah procession at any cost‖. 2. All concerned may note for strict compliance. 4 a… b… c. ― No change from practices of the previous years be permitted and every religious observances should be carried out exactly in the same manner as in the past with respect to timings and routes of the processions etc.‖
5 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
ago. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the matter needs to be examined in the light of Punjab Civil Administration Act , 2017 (― the Act‖) as the power to allow procession now vests with the Deputy Commissioner concerned. 6. Arguments heard. Record perused. 7. Before adverting to the rival submissions , it would be advantageous to examine the statutory and executive framework regulating religious processions. Article 120 of the Order, 2002 5 empowers the competent police authorities to regulate public assemblies and processions, prescribe their routes an d timings and, wherever circumstances indicate the likelihood of breach of peace, require the organization to obtain licence. In terms of the Rules of Business 6, Home Department is responsible for maintaining public order and internal security. The Provinc ial Notification was issued in pursuance of the Federal Recommendations. At this juncture, it is in the scheme of things to note that while the Rules of Business confer and allocate public safety and internal security as a government business to be conduct ed by the Home Department, Section 16 of the Act7 empowers the Deputy
5 120. Regulation of public assemblies and processions and licensing of same.– (1) Head of District Police or Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of Police may as occasion require, direct the conduct of assemblies and processions on public roads, or in public streets or thoroughfares and prescribe the routes by which and the times at which, such processions may pass. (2) He may also, on being sat isfied that it is intended by any persons or class of persons to convene or collect any assembly in any such road, street or thoroughfare, or to form a procession which would, in his judgement, if uncontrolled, be likely to cause a breach of the peace, req uire by general or special notice that the persons convening or collecting such assembly or directing or promoting such processions shall apply for a licence. (3) On such application being made, he may issue a licence sp ecifying the names of the licens ees and defining the conditions on which alone such assembly or such procession is to permitted to take place and otherwise giving effect to this Article: Provided that no fee shall be charged on the application for , or grant of any such licence.
6 Under Second Schedule pertaining to distribution of business among departments under the heading Home Department at Serial No.2, i.e. Public order and internal security. 7 16. Public Processions etc.—(1) No public meeting, procession, assembly or gathering shall take place without prior permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner. (2) On receipt of an
6 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
Commissioner concerned to grant permission of any public gathering and/or procession in consultation with the District Police Officer concerned. This scheme of arrangement of empowering the Deputy Commissioner in consultation with District Police Officer has a meaningful consultative place which is in consonance with the allocation of business of public safety and internal security on the Home Department under the Rules of Business. 8. Learned Law Officer along with Deputy Commissioner Bahawalpur has sought to justify the impugned order by placing reliance upon the Rules of Business. It has, however, not been disputed that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order was passed. Be that as it may, the present case presents an altogether different legal anomaly. The impugned order purports to restore a licence in favour of a person who admittedly passed away in the year 200 3. A licence issued under th e law is fundamentally regulatory in character. It identifies the person responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions governing a religious procession and facilitates effective regulation by the competent authorities. Such a licence is neither proprietary in nature nor does it create any heritable or proprietary interest capable of automatic succession. Consequently, restoration of a licence in the name of a deceased person, who is no longer capable of complying with the statutory obligations att ached thereto, is legally unsustainable. Moreover, restoration of such a licence necessarily presupposes that the competent authority has examined the attendant security and public order considerations. Yet, once the original licence holder is no longer alive, the more fundamental question remains
application for the purpose, the Deputy Commissioner, in consultation with the head of District Police, may grant permission subject to such terms and c onditions as he deems fit or reject the application after recording reasons. (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, in consultation with the head of the respective local government, requisition such assistance of the local government as may be necessary in the circumstances.
7 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
unanswered—who is legally entitled to conduct and regulate the procession thereafter. 9. At the same time, the converse proposition is equally untenable. The demise of the original licence holder cannot, by its elf, extinguish the religious rights of the stakeholders historically associated with the procession. Religious observances protected by Article 20 of the Constitution cannot ordinarily be made dependent upon the continued existence of a particular individ ual. The licence merely regulates the manner in which a procession is to be conducted in the interest of public order and security; it neither creates nor extinguishes the underlying constitutional right to freely profess and practice religion. Accordingly, while the licence itself remains personal and non-heritable, the religious observance with which it is associated does not necessarily come to an end merely because the original licence holder has passed away. The licence has a direct nexus with the orga nisation and regulation of the procession, whereas the constitutional rights of the members of the religious community concerned continue to subsist and remain entitled to the constitutional protection. 10. The controversy, therefore, cannot be resolved either by treating the licence as heritable property devolving upon the legal heirs or by restoring it in the name of a deceased person. Equally, it cannot be answered by assuming that the death of the original licence holder forever disentitles the stakeh olders from seeking a lawful regulatory arrangement. The matter necessarily requires a fresh administrative determination in accordance with the statutory framework, the prevailing security situation and the constitutional guarantees. Significantly, neither the impugned order nor the submissions advanced before this Court have addressed the effect of Section 16 of the Act, which expressly empowers the Deputy Commissioner, in consultation
8 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
with the District Police, to regulate public meetings, assemblies and processions. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain. More importantly, however, the present case exposes a wider question as to the authority competent to determine the future status of such historical licences and the principles by which that exercise is to be governed. The issue is not merely one of administrative competence but also of identifying a regulatory framework capable of harmonising the statutory regime with the constitutional protection afforded to religious observances, therefore, Deputy Commissioner Bahawalpur cannot decide a matter which has implications throughout Province of Punjab. 11. It also follows that the executive instructions of the year 2005 cannot be interpreted to mean that no application for a fresh licence can ever be entertained irrespective of the passage of time or the prevailing security situation. Such an interpretation would convert what is essentially an executive policy into a perpetual prohibition, thereby foreclosing the exercise of statutory discretion ves ted in the competent authority under the law. Such consequence neither appears to have been intended by the executive instructions themselves nor can ordinarily be reconciled with the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 20 of the Constitution. This, however, should not be construed as a declaration that every applicant becomes entitled to the grant of a licence. Whether a licence is to be granted in a given case must necessarily depend upon the prevailing security assessment, local circumstances, availability of adequate arrangements for maintenance of law and order and all other relevant considerations, the evaluation whereof exclusively falls within the competence of the executive authorities. 12. It is also pertinent to observe that religious processions and congregational observances during the holy month of Muharram-ul- Haram cannot be viewed on the same footing as ordinary public
9 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
assemblies, demonstrations, commemorative rallies or ceremonial events8, which are regulated primarily from th e st andpoint of public order. Muharram-ul-Haram processions and Majalis are manifestations of sincerely held religious belief and constitute an exercise of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 20 of the Constitution. Their regulation, therefore, stan ds on a distinct constitutional footing. While the State is fully competent to regulate such religious observances through the Home Department, Police Department and Civil Administration in the interest of public safety and internal security, the object of such regulation is to facilitate their peaceful and orderly conduct rather than to render their lawful exercise illusory. The applicable legal framework must, therefore, maintain a fair and workable balance between the constitutional guarantee of religiou s freedom and peaceful assembly9 with the equally compelling obligation of the State to preserve public order and ensure the safety of all citizens. 13. It has repeatedly come to the notice of this Court that almost every year, immediately before the commencement of the holy month of Muharram-ul-Haram, constitutional petitions are filed seeking permission for processions, Majalis or other allied religious observances. Such last -minute litigation places both the constitutional Courts and the executive aut horities in an otherwise avoidable predicament. The executive is deprived of adequate time for meaningful security planning, whereas the Courts are called upon to decide matters involving disputed facts and sensitive security considerations within an extremely limited timeframe. A careful analysis of the issues involved indicates that the existing executive policy, formulated in the backdrop of the extraordinary law and order and internal security challenges
8 For instance Women’s Day. 9 Article 16 of the Constitution —Freedom of assembly. Every citizen shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of public order.
10 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
prevailing in the year 2005, was intended to pres erve continuity of the existing religious observances while discouraging the grant of fresh licences. Those policy directions undoubtedly served an important purpose in the prevailing security environment and continue to remain relevant to the maintenance of the public order. However, the present case demonstrates that the existing framework does not comprehensively address every situation capable of arising in practice, particularly those involving historical licences, competing claims or the demise of an original licence holder. 14. Neither the Act nor the Police Order or the executive instructions presently holding the field appear to address the legal consequences arising upon the demise of an original licence holder or prescribe any transparent mechanism for regulating the continuation of a historical religious observance in such circumstances. Likewise, the existing policy does not sufficiently account for the dynamic nature of society. Population patterns continuously evolve; cities expand, new residential colonies and housing schemes emerge, and demographic realities inevitably change with the passage of time. A regulatory framework intended to govern religious processions cannot remain wholly detached from these changing realities. An inflexible ins istence upon adherence to historical routes and practices, without providing any mechanism for considering genuine future requirements or exceptional situations, is likely to give rise to avoidable disputes and recurring litigation. 15. The matter may also be examined from another perspective. A licence10, by its very nature, is a regulatory permission granted by the competent authority to undertake an act which, in the absence of such
10 Black’s Law Dictionary (Tenth Edition by Bryan A. Garner.). ― Licence. 1.A privilege granted by a state or city upon the payment of a fee, the recipient of the privilege then being authorized to do some act or series of acts that would otherwise be im permissible…..2. A permission, usu. revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.‖
11 W.P. No.5411 of 2022
permission, would not be permissible. It neither creates a vested or perpetual right in favour of the licensee nor denudes the competent authority of its continuing statutory discretion to grant, refuse, renew, modify, suspend or revoke such permission in accordance with law. An interpretation of the Provincial Notification as imposing an absolute and perpetual embargo upon the grant of every future licence or renewal would, therefore, appear to be inconsistent with the very concept of a licensing regime and the statutory discretion conferred upon the competent authority. Such executive instructions are, therefore, more appropriately construed as policy guidelines rather than an inflexible prohibition applicable for all times to come. 16. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that while continuity of established reli gious practices , qua routes, undoubtedly remains an important consideration for maintaining public order and communal harmony, it cannot be treated as the sole governing principle to the exclusion of all other relevant considerations. The competent authority must…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.