Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 4498
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran)
Parties: Allah Bakhsh & 1 other vs Federation of Pakistan etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran), officially reported as 2026 LHC 4498. In this matter between Allah Bakhsh & 1 other and Federation of Pakistan 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 Raheel Kamran) DECISION DATE: 02-07-2026 CASE DETAILS: Regulatory Authorities 12742/26 ============================================================ Stereo HCJDA 38 JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE (JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Writ Petition No.12742 of 2026
Allah Bakhsh, etc.
Vs.
Federation of Pakistan and others.
Petitioners by:- Mr. Mazhar Amin Chadhar, Advocate
Respondents by: Mr. Nauman Khalid, Assistant Attorney General for Federation of Pakistan.
Mr. Wajid Fareed, Advocate for respondents Nos.2&3.
Date of hearing: - 17.06.2026 JUDGMENT
RAHEEL KAMRAN, J: - Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("the Constitution"), the petitioners have called in question the legality of order dated 27.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3/Airport Manager, Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, whereby petitioner No.1's request for restoration of his airport entry pass and taxi s ticker was declined. Besides assailing the said order, the petitioners have also alleged favoritism and discriminatory treatment in the operation of airport taxi services and have sought appropriate directions for ensuring equal business opportunities to a ll lawful taxi operators at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore. 2. Succinctly stated, petitioner No.1 claims to have been operating as a taxi driver at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore and to have previously been issued an airport entry pass and taxi sticker permitting access to the airport premises. Following discontinuation of the said permission, the petitioners earlier approached this Court through Writ Petition No.56397 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2025 with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioners' pending application on its own merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was heard and 2 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 respondent No.3 passed the impugned order dated 27.11 .2025 declining restoration of the airport entry pass and taxi sticker on the ground that the petitioner had repeatedly violated the applicable standard operating procedures, was involved in complaints of misconduct affecting passenger facilitation and air port discipline and that continued access to the airport premises was not considered compatible with the statutory responsibilities entrusted to the airport management. Hence, this constitutional petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 had been operating at the airport for a considerable period and earned his livelihood through the said occupation. He maintains that the impugned order is founded upon stale, unverified and unsubstantiated allegations. According to him , the respondents have acted arbitrarily in refusing restoration of the airport entry pass and taxi sticker while extending preferential treatment to other taxi operators. He further submits that the impugned action violates Articles 4, 18 and 25 of the Co nstitution inasmuch as it deprives petitioner No.1 of his right to pursue a lawful occupation, discriminates against him without lawful justification and constitutes an abuse of authority. He accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and appro priate directions be issued in terms of the relief claimed in the petition. 4. Conversely, the learned Law Officer as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 defend the impugned order while contending that petitioner No.1 has never possess ed any vested or enforceable right to operate from within the restricted premises of the airport. According to them, airport taxi operations are governed by the Pakistan Airports Authority Act, 2023 (“the Act ”) as well as the governing concession/conditions, which expressly empower the Airport Manager to regulate issuance of airport access permissions, determine the suitability of drivers and maintain disciplinary and administrative control over airport taxi operations. They further submit that the impugned order was passed after considering the material available on record, including complaints, vigilance reports, ASF communications and the petit ioner's own written undertaking and therefore suffers from no illegality, 3 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, examined the pleadings and perused the available record as well as the relevant statutory provisions. 6. In light of the pleadings and submissions advanced at the Bar, the following questions arise for determination by this Court: (i) Whether petitioner No.1 possesses any vested or enforceable legal right to insist upon continued access to the res tricted premises of Allama Iqbal International Airport through restoration of the airport entry pass and taxi sticker; (ii) Whether the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 is vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, mala fides, discrimination or procedural unfairness so as to warrant interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction; and (iii) Whether the petitioners have established any legal basis for the grant of the wider constitutional reliefs sought in the petition relating to alleged favoritism, m onopoly or discriminatory treatment in the regulation of airport taxi operations. 7. Since the authority exercised by respondent No.3 is claimed to emanate from the Act and the governing concession arrangement regulating taxi operations at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore, it would be appropriate to first examine the statutory framework governing the field. The Act was enacted to establish the Pakistan Airports Authority for better administration, operation and development of airports an d related services. The Preamble of the Act reads as follows: "An Act to establish the Pakistan Airports Authority for better administration, operation and development of airports and air transport services in Pakistan. WHEREAS it is expedient to provide f or the establishment of the Pakistan Airports Authority for better administration, operation and development of airports and related services and for matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto." 8. The legislative object reflected in the aforesaid Preamble leaves little room for doubt that Parliament intended to establish a specialized statutory authority entrusted not merely with the physical management of airports but also with ensuring aviation sa fety, passenger facilitation, operational discipline and regulation of activities carried on within airport premises. The powers conferred upon the Authority and its 4 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 officers are, therefore, regulatory in character and must be understood in the context of maintaining the safety, security and efficient functioning of strategically important public infrastructure. 9. The impugned order has been passed by the COO/Airport Manager, who is the officer in charge of the airport and discharges the functions and duties assigned to the Airport Manager under the Act. The expression "Airport Manager" has been defined under Section 2(e) of the Act to mean an officer of the Authority in charge of the airport. The relevant provisions of Sections 4 and 13 of the Act may als o be reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “4. Functions and powers of the Authority .--(1) The Authority shall administer, operate and develop airports and air navigation services. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub -section (1), the Authority shall— (a) provide facilities and services as are necessary for the convenience of passengers and other persons using an airport; …. (c) take such measures as are necessary or convenient for, or incidental to, ensuring the safety of aircraft, passenge rs, cargo, mail and other facilities at the airports at all times; …. (f) coordinate and support the provision of customs, border management, security and other services at the airports by persons or entities other than the Authority; …. (i) take all such steps as are necessary or convenient for, or incidental to, the exercise of any power or discharge of any function or duty conferred or imposed on it by this Act.” Likewise, Section 13 of the Act provides:- “13. Airport Manager .—(1) The Authority shall appoint an airport manager for each airport. (2) With respect to the airport under his charge, the Airport Manager shall, among other things, discharge the following functions and duties:- (a) oversee the day -to-day operation and administration of the airport; (b) secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, rules, regulations, Airport Orders, policies and other directions of the Authority; (c) coordinate and support the provision of customs, border management, security and other services at the airport by persons and entities other than the Authority; and (d) ensure that the services provided at the airport are in accordance with the standards laid down under section 65.
5 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 (3) In the course of discharge of his functions and duties, the airport m anager shall have regard to the need for efficiency, economy and safety of airport operations. (4) Subject to the provisions of this A ct, rules and regulations, the airport m anager may exercise such powers and take such measures as may be necessary for carrying o ut the purpose of this section.” A conjoint reading of the preamble and the aforesaid statutory provisions leaves little room for doubt that the office of the Airport Manager is far more than that of a mere administrator of a contractual arrangement relating to taxi operations. The incumbent of that office is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring orderly administration of airport premises, maintaining operational discipline, safeguarding passenger interests and securing compliance with the statutory , regulatory and security framework governing airport operations. The powers vested in the Airport Manager are regulatory in character and are intended to facilitate effective management of a strategically important and security -sensitive public facility. Consequently, decisions pertaining to issuance, regulation, suspension or cancellation of permissions relating to access and movement within airport premises cannot be viewed through the narrow prism of private contractual rights alone; rather, such decisi ons are intrinsically connected with the discharge of statutory obligations imposed under the Act and must be evaluated in that context. 10. A conjoint reading of the Preamble together with Sections 4 and 13 unmistakably demonstrates that the Airport Manag er is not a mere administrator of contractual arrangements relating to taxi operations. Rather, he is a statutory functionary entrusted with maintaining operational discipline, safeguarding passenger interests and ensuring compliance with the statutory and regulatory framework governing airport operations. Consequently, decisions relating to issuance, regulation or withdrawal of airport access permissions cannot be examined solely through the prism of private contractual rights but must be evaluated in the broader context of the statutory obligations imposed upon the Airport Manager by the Act. 11. The record further reveals that operation of taxi/cab services at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore is governed by the concession document titled “Establishment and Operation of Taxi/Cab Handling and 6 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 Regulation Service at AIIAP, Lahore”. The relevant tender conditions may also be noticed. Clause 13(j) provides that only those taxis/cabs and drivers considered fit and suitable by the COO/Airport Manager sha ll be issued stickers after verification from the concerned authorities. Clause 13(k) expressly reserves to the licensor the right to accept or reject any application for issuance of sticker or permission and further authorizes cancellation thereof. Clause 13(u) stipulates that overall disciplinary and administrative control over the operation shall remain vested in the licensor. 12. The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that issuance of an airport entry pass or taxi sticker is not a matter of e ntitlement but a regulated permission subject to continuing supervision and control of the airport authorities. The governing framework expressly conditions such permission upon the Airport Manager's assessment of suitability and reserves to the licensor the power to regulate, suspend or cancel the same whenever circumstances so warrant. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has repeatedly emphasized that denial of the airport entry pass and taxi sticker has deprived petitioner No.1 of his means of livelihood. There can be no cavil with the proposition that the freedom to pursue a lawful occupation is a valuable constitutional right. Equally well settled, however, is the principle that where the exercise of such right is sought within a restricted and security- sensitive public facility, the competent statutory authority is entitled to regulate the manner in which such activity is carried on in furtherance of legitimate public interests. 1 In the present case, the restriction impugned by the petitioners does not prohibit petitioner No.1 from carrying on the business of transportation generally; it merely denies him continued access to a restricted portion of the airport premises. The restriction, therefore, bears a direct and rational nexus with the legitimate objectives of airport security, passenger facilitation and operational discipline and
1 See “Pakistan Broadcasters Association and others v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and others” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 692 ) holding that legislative and statutory regulation of fundamental rights is constitutionally permissible where the restriction is reasonable, f air, non-arbitrary and imposed in the larger public interest.
7 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 cannot be regarded as an excessive or disproportionate restriction upon the petitioner's right to carry on a lawful occupation. 14. The challenge founded upon Articles 4 , 18 and 25 of the Constitution is equally misconceived. Article 4 guarantees lawful treatment in accordance with law, Article 25 embodies the principle of equality before law and equal protection of law, while the freedom guaranteed under Article 18 remai ns subject to lawful regulati on and reasonable restrictions. 2 In the present case, the authority exercised by respondent No.3 is directly traceable to the statutory powers conferred under the Act and the governing concession arrangement. Equally, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that any other taxi operator, similarly situated to petitioner No.1, has been treated differently despite comparable antecedents or circumstances. The allegation of discrimination, therefore, remains wholly unsubstantiated. 15. Equally devoid of substance is the contention that the impugned order is vitiated for want of due process. The scope of judicial review in the present case is not to determine whether every complaint against the petitioner stood pr oved in the manner required for disciplinary proceedings; rather, the relevant inquiry is whether the competent authority acted fairly, considered the relevant material, afforded an opportunity of hearing and reached a decision that bears a rational connection with the material before it. The impugned order demonstrates that the petitioner's grievances were duly considered, reasons were assigned for declining the requested relief and the constitutional objections raised by him were also addressed. Learned c ounsel for the petitioners has been unable to point out any procedural irregularity or denial of fair hearing which may render the decision -making process vulnerable in constitutional jurisdiction. 16. The record further reveals that while considering the petitioner's request, the competent authority took into account vigilance communications, complaints, reports prepared by the Airport
2 “See “Muhammad Imran and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others” (2019 SCMR 1753) wherein the august Supreme Court held that Article 18 is subject to lawful regulation and reasonable restrictions.
8 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 Management, ASF communications relating to the petitioner's conduct within the airport premises and the written undertakin g dated 22.07.2025 executed by petitioner No.1. It is true that some of the complaints relate to earlier periods and, by themselves, may not constitute an independent basis for refusing restoration of the airport entry pass. However, the impugned decision was not founded upon any isolated complaint. The competent authority considered the material cumulatively, including the more recent reports and communications, for the limited purpose of assessing the petitioner's suitability for continued access to a res tricted and security-sensitive area of the airport. Likewise, the undertaking dated 22.07.2025 has not been treated by this Court as conclusive proof of misconduct but merely as one of the relevant circumstances available to the competent authority while forming its administrative assessment. 17. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the material available before respondent No.3 furnished a rational basis for the administrative decision ultimately taken. Whether another view on the same material was also possible is not the question before this Court. Once the competent authority has acted within the sphere of its statutory powers, considered the relevant material and recorded reasons in support of its conclusion, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion merely because a different conclusion may also have been possible. 18. It is by now well settled that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not with the merits of the decision itself. 3 In matters relatin g to regulation of access to restricted airport premises, the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is confined to examining whether the competent authority acted within the bounds of law, considered the relevant material, excluded irrelevant considera tions and observed the requirements of procedural fairness. It is not the function of this Court to reappraise the material as an appellate forum or to substitute its own opinion for that of the statutory authority merely because another view may also be possible.
3 Suo Motu Case No.11 of 2011 (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 389 ) and Suo Motu Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 619 ) holding that the judicial review examines the legality of the decision - making process rather than the merits of the decision. 9 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 19. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that respondent No.3 exercised powers expressly conferred by the Act and the governing concession arrangement regulating taxi operations at Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the petitioner's grievances, the material placed before the competent authority and the statutory responsibilities entrusted to the Airport Manager. No jurisdictional er ror, malafides, procedural impropriety or patent arbitrariness has been demonstrated so as to justify interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. 20. No cogent material has been brought on record to establish that the concession arrangement or the regulatory framework governing tax i operations is tainted by malafides, arbitrariness or hostile discrimination. Mere allegations of favoritism or monopoly, unsupported by evidence, cannot furnish a valid basis for invoking the constitutional jurisdic tion of this Court or for issuing the wide -ranging directions sought by the petitioners. The challenge to the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 having otherwise failed on merits, the remaining reliefs sought in the petition also do not warrant acceptance. 21. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 calls for no interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. This petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, clarified t hat since the permission in question is regulatory in nature and remains subject to the statutory and administrative framework governing airport operations, this judgment shall not preclude petitioner No.1 from making any future application before the competent authority in accordance with law.
RAHEEL KAMRAN JUDGE
Announced in the Open Court on __________.
JUDGE
Approved for reporting
JUDGE Waqas* 10 W.P.No.12742 of 2026 Form No.HCJD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. W.P.No.12742 of 2026
Allah Bakhsh, etc. Versus Federation of Pakistan and others.
S.No. of order/ Proceeding Date of order/ Proceeding Order with signature of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where necessary. 06.07.2026 Nemo.
After the judgment in the titled petit ion was announced in open Court and signed, it has been suo moto noticed that an accidental slip had occurred inasmuch as paragraph No.10 appearing on page No.5 of the judgment substantially reiterates and serves the very same purpose as the paragraph immediately preceding it, thereb y resulting in unnecessary duplication. 2. The aforesaid error is clerical and purely accidental in nature , therefore, it falls within the ambit of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), the same is hereby corrected in exercise of the powers conferred the rein. Accordingly, paragraph No.10 appearing on page No.5 of the judgment is hereby deleted and all subsequent paragraphs shall be deemed to have been renumbered in sequence. 3. Since the judgment in the titled writ petition has been approved for reporting, having decided an important question of law and the same has already been uploaded on the Lahore High Court website, therefore, this order shall also be uploaded with the judgment dated 02.07.2026 in the titled writ petition.
(RAHEEL KAMRAN) JUDGE
Waqas*