Mazhar Rahim Awan vs R.D.A. etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,

RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

Mazhar Rahim Awan Versus Rawalpindi Development Authority and 6 others

JUDGMENT

Date of Hearing: 30.06.2026 Petitioner by: Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, ASC. Respondents by: M/s. Kashif Ali Malik, Raja Waqar Ilyas and Barrister Gul Share Ali, Advocates for the Respondent No.1/RDA with Tahir Ahmad, Planning Officer, RDA.

Mr. Shoukat Imran Rao, Assistant Advocate- General with Dr. Hassan Waqar Cheema, Deputy Commissioner, Rawalpindi; Ashfaq Ahmad Sulehri, Deputy Project Director, Sheharyar Sherazi, ADC(R) and Maleeha, ADCG.

Mr. Imtiaz Cheema, Advocate/Legal Advisor D.C. Office.

Mr. Farooq Hussain, Deputy Director Legal, Punjab Ring Road Authority.

JAWAD HASSAN, J. Through this writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, (the “Constitution”), the Petitioner has prayed as under:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ:

a. declaring that the intended and threatened actions/proceedings of the respondents, including stoppage of construction of the access road, interference

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

in the petitioner's development work, threatened cancellation/ withdrawal/recall/review of the No Objection Certificate dated 28-01-2026, including other approvals are illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, mala fide, discriminatory and of no legal effect;

b. declaring and affirming that the No Objection Certificate dated 28-01-2026, the approval of land use conversion, the approval of the LGCD Commercial Building Plans, and all other allied and consequential approvals granted in favour of the petitioner are valid, lawful, final, subsisting, operative, irrevocable and binding upon the respondents, and are not liable to be reopened, reviewed, recalled, withdrawn or cancelled; c. restrain the respondents, their officers, officials, agents, functionaries, and all persons acting on their behalf from cancelling, withdrawing, recalling, or otherwise frustrating the aforesaid No Objection Certificate and approvals, and from damaging, obstructing or interfering with the petitioner's service area site, development work, construction, possession and commercial activity and further restraining the respondents from granting access, permission, approval or similar rights for additional service areas or facilities to any other person in violation of the original design, planning objective, limited-access character, SOPs and traffic discipline of the Rawalpindi Ring Road;

d. direct respondent No.1 and all other concerned respondents to comply with and implement the No Objection Certificate dated 28-01-2026 in its true letter and spirit, including provision, construction, continuation

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

and completion of access within the right of way (ROW) through the approach road already commenced for the petitioner's service area, and further direct them to complete and finish the construction of the ROW/access road so that the petitioner's service station may become operational;

e. grant any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

I. CONTEXT

2.Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent No.1/Rawalpindi Development Authority (RDA) planned the construction of the Rawalpindi Ring Road-R3 (38.3 KM) Main Carriage Way (MCW) from BANTH (N-5) to THALIAN (M-2), for which various proposals, including the establishment of Service Areas, were prepared. The Petitioner purchased land measuring 46 kanals and 13 marlas on the northern side and 56 kanals and 1 marla on the southern side of the Rawalpindi Ring Road (the “Land”) through registered sale deeds dated 22.01.2026 and 24.01.2026, respectively, after obtaining information through the Government of Punjab's "eBiz Punjab" portal regarding establishment of a service area along the Rawalpindi Ring Road. Thereafter, the Petitioner applied for issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for provision of access to establish service areas on both sides of the Ring Road. The application was processed by the concerned authorities, including NESPAK and Respondent No.1/RDA issued the NOC dated 28.01.2026. Subsequently, the proposal was approved by the competent planning forums, namely the Pre-District Planning and Design Committee and the District Planning and Design Committee, under the Punjab Land Use Plan (Classification, Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rules, 2020 (the “Rules”). Thereafter, the Petitioner obtained approval of land use conversion through the eBiz Punjab Portal after depositing the prescribed conversion fee. The Petitioner also obtained allied approvals and No Objection Certificates for installation of petrol pumps and commercial building plans from the

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

competent authorities and deposited the requisite government dues and building fees. After obtaining all requisite approvals, the Petitioner commenced development work at both service areas, incurred substantial expenditure on development, construction and allied infrastructure, obtained electricity demand notice from IESCO and also entered into joint venture arrangements with third parties.

3.It is the Petitioner's case that under the terms of the NOC dated 28.01.2026, the Respondents No.1 to 3 were required to provide access to the service areas through an approach road within the Right of Way (ROW) and construction of the said access road had also been commenced. However, subsequently, the Respondents stopped construction of the said road, directed the Petitioner to stop development work, threatened cancellation of the NOC and other approvals and also attempted to interfere with the development work being carried out at the project site. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed this Petition seeking protection of the NOC and allied approvals, restraint against the threatened actions of the respondents and a direction for completion of the access road in terms of the NOC dated 28.01.2026.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

4.At the outset, when confronted to the maintainability of this writ Petition, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, ASC has submitted that the Petitioner after fulfilling all codal formalities and purchase of aforesaid land, applied for issuance of NOC for provision of access for construction of a Service Areas along both sides of the Rawalpindi Ring Road. He added that the said application was referred to the Respondents No.2 and 3 for evaluation and processing, whereafter the Respondent No.3, in consultation with NESPAK, prepared the requisite designs, drawings and estimates and, upon completion of all legal and administrative formalities, the Respondent No.1 granted the NOC vide letter dated 28.01.2026.

5.When further confronted to the maintainability of this Petition on the ground that as to which action(s) of the Respondents have caused prejudice or

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

injury to the Petitioner; Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, ASC submitted that after issuance of the aforesaid NOC, the matter was placed before the competent planning forums i.e. Pre-District Planning and Design Committee and thereafter the District Planning and Design Committee, which approved and endorsed the service areas on both sides of the Rawalpindi Ring Road under the Rules subject to payment of government dues and compliance of the conditions contained in the NOC. He urged that thereafter the Petitioner applied through eBiz Punjab portal for conversion/commercialization of the said lands and, after scrutiny of ownership documents, site particulars and payment of prescribed fees, commercial land use conversion was duly approved. He added that the Petitioner deposited conversion fees amounting to Rs.15,824,000/- for the northern service area and Rs.14,800,000/- for the southern service area (the “Payment”). He further stated that the Petitioner also obtained allied approvals and NOCs for installation of petrol pumps and commercial building plans through the competent authorities and the eBiz Punjab portal. According to learned counsel, the Petitioner deposited building fees and other government dues aggregating Rs.31,784,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that relying upon the NOC and all subsequent approvals, the Petitioner immediately commenced development work and carried out cut-and-fill earthwork, grading and retaining works on both service areas at a cost of approximately Rs.220 million. He added that the Petitioner also constructed the head office building and superstructure, installed solar power systems, sewerage plants, tube wells and water supply works and made substantial investments in the project. He further submitted that IESCO has also issued electricity demand notice(s) for the project and that the Petitioner’s investment, payments already advanced and committed third-party interests exceed Rs.753.25 million, apart from the cost of acquisition of land and other expenses. He added that the Petitioner has entered into joint venture arrangements and created third-party rights in the project and is under substantial financial liabilities towards investors and financiers. Learned counsel contended that under the NOC dated 28.01.2026, access within the

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

Right of Way (ROW) was agreed to be provided through an approach road to be constructed by the Respondents No.1 to 3 and that substantial construction of the said access road had already been carried out. He added that the Petitioner repeatedly requested the Respondents vide letters dated 14.04.2026 and 26.05.2026 to issue a demand notice(s) for deposit of ROW charges or rent as may be assessed under the applicable rules, but no such demand was ever issued. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment reported as “MIRZA SUGAR MILLS LTD versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and another” (1992 MLD 1119).

6.When further confronted as to how the Respondents are interfering or causing any obstruction in the execution of the Petitioner’s project, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, Sr. ASC submitted that all of a sudden, the Respondents No.1 to 3 stopped construction of the access road within the Right of Way and directed the Petitioner to stop development work on both service areas. He added that officials of the Respondents threatened for cancellation and withdrawal of the NOC dated 28.01.2026 and similarly officials of Respondents No.5 and 7 visited the site and expressed their intention to recall or cancel the approved commercial building plans. He further stated that the Respondents also created hindrance in the development work and attempted to demolish the construction already carried out by the Petitioner. Learned counsel vehemently argued that no proceedings under any law, rules or regulations have been initiated against the Petitioner. He added that neither any notice or show-cause alleging violation of any term or condition of the NOC or approvals has been issued, nor has any opportunity of hearing been afforded to the Petitioner. He urged that no written order has been passed by any competent authority and the threatening actions are wholly illegal, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, mala fide, contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 10-A, 18, 23 and 24 of the Constitution.

7.Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, Sr. ASC further submitted that the NOC dated 28.01.2026 is the foundation stone of the entire project and every

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

subsequent approval, including land use conversion, LGCD commercial building plans, allied NOCs, investments and third-party arrangements, rests upon the said NOC. He added that the Respondents themselves processed the applications, granted the approvals and commenced construction of the approach road and, therefore, cannot now resile from their own representations. Learned counsel maintained that after the NOC and approvals had been acted upon by both the Petitioner and the Respondents, the same became final, operative and irrevocable and vested rights have been accrued in favour of the Petitioner. He argued that the Respondents have become functus officio and have exhausted their authority to withdraw, recall, review or cancel the said approvals. He further submitted that the Petitioner’s case is fully protected by the doctrines of vested rights, legitimate expectation, promissory estoppel, judicial estoppel, laches and acquiescence. He also submitted that the Respondents have neither disclosed any lawful basis for the threatened actions nor pointed out any violation committed by the Petitioner. According to learned counsel, the impugned threatening actions amount to arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and colourable exercise of power and are liable to be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He further argued that these actions also infringe the Petitioner’s fundamental right to conduct lawful trade, business and profession guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution, as the Petitioner is carrying out a lawful commercial activity pursuant to valid approvals granted by the competent authorities. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgments reported as “PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Chief Executive Officer/Senior General Manager, Lahore and another versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM” (2024 SCMR 97), “Messrs ARMY WELFARE SUGAR MILLS LTD and others versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others” (1992 SCMR 1652), “JDW SUGAR MILLS and others versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others” (PLD 2017 Lahore 68), “MUBASHIR JAVED and others versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others” (PLD 2022 Lahore 817) and “M.C.R.

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

(Pvt) Ltd, franchisee of Pizza Hut v. Multan Development Authority and others” (2021 CLD 639).

8.Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Shaikh, Sr. ASC goes on to submit that as per Article 4 of the Constitution it is an inalienable right of every citizen including Petitioner to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to his/her life, liberty, reputation or property shall be taken except as per law. He maintained that Article 10-A of the Constitution provides the right of fair trial and due process for determination of rights and obligations. Also submitted that Petitioner has fundamental right under Article 23 of the Constitution to acquire, hold and dispose of property and Article 24 of the Constitution clearly states that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law, therefore, the Respondents are bound to act in accordance with law. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court reported as “Muhammad Khalid Javed versus Lahore Development Authority, etc.” (PLD 2021 Lahore 211). Learned counsel for the Petitioner lastly submitted that establishment of service area by the Petitioner is in public interest as it provides essential facilities to commuters on the Rawalpindi Ring Road without burdening the public exchequer. He prayed that impugned actions of the Respondents, including stoppage of construction of the access road, interference in the Petitioner’s development work and threat to cancel, withdraw, recall or review of the NOC dated 28.01.2026 and allied approvals, be declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Learned counsel in support of his arguments also relied on the judgments reported as “Muhammad Tahir Jamal Advocate v. Government of Punjab, etc.” (PLD 2020 Lahore 407) and undertook that the Petitioner will provide all the basic amenities at both the Service Areas i.e. Emergency Service, Filling Stations, Mosque, Rest/Food Area, Plantation of Trees, etc. for the commuter/travelers.

III. RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS

Submissions made by Respondent No.1/RDA

9.Pursuant to the order dated 23.06.2026, M/s. Kashif Ali Malik, Raja Waqar Ilyas and Barrister Gul Share Ali, Advocates for the Respondent

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

No.1/RDA; appeared and vehemently objected to the maintainability of this Petition. However, despite the specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2026 to submit a report and parawise comments, the Respondent/RDA failed to comply with the said order. Instead of filing the requisite report and parawise comments, learned counsel for the Respondent/RDA merely sought further time for the said purpose, without assigning any justifiable reason; which is totally unjustified and reflects a casual approach towards the proceedings before this Court.

Submissions made by Respondents No.2 to 4

10.Learned Law Officer submitted that Respondent No.4/District Planning and Design Committee is merely a planning forum constituted under the Rules, which is competent to consider and approve classification, reclassification and notification of land use on the basis of the material placed before it by the sponsoring agency. He added that Respondent No.1/RDA, being the custodian of the Rawalpindi Ring Road, referred the Petitioner's case along with the NOC dated 28.01.2026, service area site plan and other relevant material for consideration. He further submitted that the matter was duly considered by the Pre-District Planning and Design Committee and thereafter by the District Planning and Design Committee, wherein the representatives of Respondents No.1 to 3, including the Deputy Project Director (RRR), participated and confirmed the NOC as well as the design of the Right of Way prepared in consultation with NESPAK. He urged that, after due deliberation, the Committee approved and endorsed the proposal for notification of the service areas on both sides of the Rawalpindi Ring Road under the Rules, 2020, subject to deposit of the prescribed government dues and compliance with the conditions contained in the NOC. He further submitted that the Committee also cleared the change of land use under the applicable Rules, whereas the assessment and collection of fees, approval of building plans, issuance of petrol pump NOC, construction of the access road within the Right of Way and other allied matters fall exclusively within the

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

jurisdiction of Respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6. He also submitted that the Respondent No.4 has neither issued any notice nor passed any order cancelling, recalling, reviewing or withdrawing its approval, endorsement or clearance.

Submissions made by Respondent No.5

11.Mr. Imtiaz Cheema, Advocate/Legal Advisor of Respondent No.5 has submitted that the Respondent No.5/District Council, Rawalpindi, through Administrator/Deputy Commissioner, Rawlapindi is a notified local government functioning under the Rules, and the applicable Building and Zoning Bye-Laws, 2020 (the “Bye-Laws”) and is responsible for processing matters relating to land use conversion and building plan approvals through the eBiz Punjab Portal. He submitted that the District Planning and Design Committee (DP&DC), in its meeting held on 11.02.2026, approved and endorsed the establishment of both service areas along the Rawalpindi Ring Road and cleared the change of land use under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2020. He added that after circulation of the said decision for implementation vide letter dated 13.02.2026, the Petitioner applied through the eBiz Punjab Portal for land use conversion, whereupon the applications were processed by the Planning Branch and duly approved by the Chief Officer, District Council, Rawalpindi. He further submitted that since the commercial valuation of the subject land was not available in the prevailing valuation table, the matter was referred to the District Price Assessment Committee, which determined the applicable commercial rate. Consequently, the conversion fee was calculated under Rule 50 of the Rules, 2020, online Payment Slip IDs (PSIDs) were generated, and after the Petitioner deposited conversion charges amounting to Rs.15,824,000/- for the northern service area and Rs.14,800,000/- for the southern service area, the land use conversion approvals were issued through the eBiz Punjab Portal and both properties stood commercialized. He further stated that the Petitioner thereafter applied for approval of the commercial building plans through the eBiz Punjab Portal. After verification that the land had already been commercialized, the Respondent No.5 processed and

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

approved the commercial building plans upon deposit of the prescribed building fees, whereafter the formal approval letters were issued through the Petitioner's eBiz account. He also submitted that the approval of building plans relating to the petrol pump sites was subject to issuance of NOCs by the District Petrol Pump Committee (Respondent No.6). Upon receipt of the said NOCs, the Petitioner again applied through the eBiz Punjab Portal, whereafter the Respondent No.5 approved the petrol pump building plans after deposit of the prescribed fees and issued the approval letters through the Petitioner's eBiz account. He added that the Petitioner is required to complete the construction within one year in accordance with the approved building plans. Submissions made by Respondent No.6

12.Learned Law Officer on the basis of report of Respondent No.6/District Petrol Pump Committee, Rawalpindi, has submitted that the role of Respondent No.6 was confined only to the consideration and issuance of No Objection Certificates for establishment of petrol pumps in accordance with the applicable law and departmental policy. He submitted that after the District Planning and Design Committee approved the establishment of the service areas and the requisite planning approvals had been granted, the Petitioner applied for issuance of NOC for installation of petrol pumps at both the northern and southern service areas. He further submitted that the Respondent No.6, after processing the Petitioner's applications and being satisfied that the prescribed requirements had been fulfilled, issued the requisite NOCs for both petrol pump sites, subject to the usual terms and conditions, including compliance of the requirements of OGRA, the Department of Explosives and other competent authorities. He added that after issuance of the aforesaid NOCs by the Respondent No.6, the Petitioner submitted applications before Respondent No.5 through the eBiz Punjab Portal for approval of the petrol pump building plans, whereupon Respondent No.5 processed and approved the same after deposit of the prescribed fees. Lastly, submitted that the Respondent No.6 has performed its statutory functions strictly in accordance with law and has no concern with the

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

controversy relating to the alleged stoppage of the project or the threatened cancellation of the approvals.

Submissions made by Respondent No.7

13.Learned Law Officer further submitted on the basis of report and parawise comments of the Respondent No.7/Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue (ADCR), Rawalpindi, that the registered Sale Deeds in favour of the Petitioner and the consequent mutations are matters of the revenue record and are duly reflected therein. He further submitted that the Pre-District Planning and Design Committee, convened under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, in its meeting held on 10.02.2026, considered the proposal regarding establishment of service areas on both sides of the Rawalpindi Ring Road and recommended the same for approval by the District Planning and Design Committee. He added that, thereafter, the District Planning and Design Committee, in its meeting dated 11.02.2026, approved and endorsed the notification of the proposed service areas in accordance with law. He further submitted that since the commercial on-road valuation of the subject land was not available in the prevailing valuation table, the matter was referred to the District Price Assessment Committee, functioning under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), which assessed the commercial value of the subject khasras and communicated the same to the competent authority for calculation of the land use conversion fee. He also submitted that the approval of land use conversion and collection of conversion charges fall within the domain of Respondents No.4 and 5, whereas the role of Respondent No.7 was confined only to the aforesaid functions.

14.Heard. Record perused.

IV. DETERMINATION BY THE COURT

15.Perusal of the record reveals that the Respondent No.1/RDA itself planned the Rawalpindi Ring Road-R3 Project. Initially, a proposal for establishment of a service area at the expense of the public exchequer was

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

under consideration; however, the same was deleted at the Government level. Subsequently, the Government of Punjab introduced the eBiz Punjab Portal to facilitate private investment through a one-window digital system. Acting upon the said policy and the representations made by the Government, the Petitioner purchased land measuring 46 Kanals 13 Marlas on the northern side and 56 Kanals 01 Marla on the southern side of the Rawalpindi Ring Road through registered sale deeds. Thereafter, the Petitioner obtained NOC dated 28.01.2026 from Respondent No.1/RDA, secured approval of the proposed service areas from the competent planning forums, obtained land use conversion/commercialization, commercial building plan approvals, petrol pump No Objection Certificates and other allied approvals from the competent authorities after depositing the prescribed government dues amounting to Rs.31,784,000/-. The record further shows that all these approvals were granted by the competent statutory authorities after completion of the prescribed legal process and remained operative.

16.It is also an admitted position on the record that Respondent No.4/District Planning and Design Committee, through its report and parawise comments, has categorically admitted that the proposal for establishment of the service areas was duly approved in the meetings held on 10.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 on the basis of the proposal and NOC submitted by Respondent No.1/RDA. It has further been admitted that no notice, show- cause or order has ever been issued for withdrawal, review or cancellation of the said approval. Likewise, the Respondent No.5/District Council has admitted that, after approval by the planning forum, the Petitioner's applications were processed through the eBiz Punjab Portal, the prescribed conversion charges and building fees were deposited, the land use conversion was approved, both properties stood commercialized and the commercial building plans were duly sanctioned. The Respondent No.7 has also admitted the recommendations made by the Pre-District Planning and Design Committee and the assessment of commercial value for calculation of conversion charges. These admissions materially support the Petitioner's case

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

and establish that all statutory approvals were granted by the competent authorities in accordance with law.

17.On the other hand, despite specific directions issued by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2026, the Respondent No.1/RDA failed to submit the required report and parawise comments. Instead, learned counsel merely sought further time without furnishing any plausible justification. Such conduct on the part of a statutory authority cannot be appreciated, particularly when serious allegations regarding threats, cancellation of approvals and obstruction in execution of the project have been raised before this Court. A public Authority is expected to assist the Court by placing the complete factual and legal position on record instead of delaying the proceedings unnecessarily.

18.From perusal of record it is also established that after obtaining all the requisite approvals, the Petitioner invested huge amounts in the project. Besides depositing government dues of Rs.31,784,000/-, the Petitioner carried out development works including earthwork, grading, retaining works, construction of the head office building, installation of solar power systems, sewerage plants, tube wells and water supply works. He also received electricity demand notices from IESCO and entered into joint venture arrangements with third parties. According to the material available on record, the Petitioner's total investment, liabilities and third-party commitments exceed Rs.753 million, apart from the cost of acquisition of land. These investments were made only after obtaining the approvals granted by the competent statutory authorities and cannot lightly be ignored. In the judgment reported as M.C.R. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Multan Development Authority, and others (2021 CLD 639) this Court emphasized that Article 18 of the Constitution protects lawful trade and business and that Courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect lawful investments and promote ease of doing business in accordance with law. Once the State itself invites investment through its statutory mechanism and grants the requisite approvals, such investment deserves protection unless the approvals are withdrawn strictly in accordance

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

with law and after observance of due process. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment (2021 CLD 639) are as under:

“26. With each passing day, the World is becoming more global and more inter-connected, particularly in the affairs of trade and commerce. The volume of foreign investment and number of such business initiatives are taken as one of the determining traits for measuring economic growth of a country and it has also a direct bearing upon the financial prosperity of the citizens of a country.

27.Article 4 of the Constitution guarantees equal protection of law and fundamental right to be treated in accordance with law as inalienable right of every citizen “wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan”. Simultaneously, Article 5 of the Constitution unequivocally laid down that obedience to the Constitution and law is the inviolable obligation of “every citizen wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan”. It is thus evidently clear that the enjoyment of rights is made subject to abiding of the law and fundamental right of inviolability of equality before the law is equally corresponded with the obligation of obedience to the Constitution and the law, both for the citizen and for any other person who is for the time being in Pakistan. The Constitution is grundnorm of the country and law is the command of sovereign body, which is established and mandated under the Constitution to promulgate and enact laws either in the form of primary legislation i.e., Acts and Ordinance etc. or in the form of delegated legislation. Similarly, under Article 189 and Article 201 of the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts to the extent of decision on a question of law or enunciation on the principle of law, are also binding on all the Courts of the country and in the particular Province, as the case maybe. It is therefore imperative and

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

obligatory upon the citizen as well as any person of foreign nationality, who is for the time being in Pakistan, to adhere and abide by the Constitution, the law and judgments of the constitutional Courts of the country and on the other hand, he has a fundamental inviolable right of equal protection of the law.

28.Undoubtedly freedom of trade, business and commerce is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution which states that every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business. One of the basic purposes behind provision of this fundamental right is certainly to advance culture of socio-economic progress and to protect and promote business and trade activities and, at the same time, to encourage simplification of the process of establishing and carrying out new business ventures throughout the country because activities of business and trade create opportunities for the masses around and provide job options, financial stability and progress in the area.

29.Since the Pizza Hut is an international chain and entered into lease agreement with WASA, it is the duty of the Courts in Pakistan to see the rights of the parties and to protect their interest in order to build confidence of investors in Pakistan but at the same time the interest of government functionaries has also to be examined regarding financial interest of the Government. The learned Civil/Commercial Court is, therefore, directed to decide the case expeditiously but not later than 60 days from the receipt of copy of this judgment in accordance with law.”

19.It is also evident from the record that no show-cause notice has been issued to the Petitioner, nor has any speaking order been passed, nor have any proceedings under the relevant law been initiated for cancellation or withdrawal of the NOC dated 28.01.2026 or any other allied approval.

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

Consequently, the threatening actions of the Respondents, without lawful authority and without following due process, are violative of the Petitioner's right to fair trial under Article 10-A, which grants right of fair trial and due process to every citizen of this country. Moreover, under Article 4 of the Constitution it is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to his/her life, liberty, reputation or property shall be taken except as per law.

20.The conduct of the Respondents further shows that after processing the Petitioner's applications through the official eBiz Punjab Portal, issuing the NOC, granting planning approvals, approving commercialization and building plans and receiving the prescribed government dues, they cannot subsequently frustrate the very approvals granted by them without following the procedure prescribed by law. It is also pertinent to observe that the Rawalpindi Ring Road-R3 has a total length of approximately 38.3 kilometers. At the prescribed operational speed of about 80 kilometers per hour, the entire stretch can ordinarily be traversed in about half an hour. Therefore, there is no certainty that every commuter/traveler using the Rawalpindi Ring Road would stop at the Petitioner's proposed service areas and the commercial success of the project would naturally depend upon market factors and the choice of the travelling public. The possibility of low commercial returns or even financial loss is a business risk which the Petitioner has voluntarily assumed while making the investment. Therefore, the competent authorities are bound by their own official acts unless the same are withdrawn or cancelled strictly in accordance with law, hence, the principle of promissory estoppel and judicial estoppel is also fully attracted to the facts of the present case because a party cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously and cannot be allowed to take contradictory positions after having earlier acted upon a particular factual and legal position. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported as JDW Sugar Mills Ltd. and others versus Province of Punjab and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 68) wherein the scope and rationale behind the principle of judicial estoppel has

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

been elaborated by observing that “it is fundamental duty of a Court to protect the integrity of the judicial process. A party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. When a party takes an inconsistent position in the same case or in a prior case, the principle of judicial estoppel should be applied”, which concept has been further developed by this Court in subsequent judgment reported as Mubashar Javed and others versus Province of Punjab and others (PLD 2022 Lahore 817) by holding that “under the doctrine of judicial estoppel a Court can stop a party from taking up contradictory stances if it is clearly inconsistent with the previous position, as a matter of fact in one case and is successful in that assertion, that party is estopped from asserting a different position on the same facts in the second case.”

21.In this case, the Respondents have already issued the NOC and all allied approvals for the Project in question and at this belated stage any interference would cause irreparable loss to the Petitioner. Therefore, under the Doctrine of Sovereignty, the Respondents are bound to adhere to the aforesaid NOC/approvals. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Mst. Fatima Faryad etc. v. Government of Punjab etc. (2020 CLC 836) has held that:

“under the Doctrine of Sovereignty they are bound to adhere to their commitment in the light of dictum laid down in the case of Dewan Salman Fibber Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, M/o Finance and others (2015 PTD 2304) whereby this Court while laying emphasis on the importance of the Government adhering to severing commitments made by it, whether in the form of the statutory orders or notification issued by it or in the shape of policies announced by it held that "the commitments made on behalf of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should neither be lightly disregarded nor deliberately ignored. The orderly development of a civilized society requires that citizens should be entitled to place implicit faith and confidence on representations which are made by or on

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

behalf of the duty constituted governmental authorities. The importance of this underlies the sustained thrust towards the industrialization of the country in which both the nationals of Pakistan as well as nationals of foreign countries should have complete confidence that official commitments will be duly honored and acted upon in letter and spirit."

22.It is also noteworthy that the proposed service areas are intended to provide essential facilities to the Commuters/Travellers using the Rawalpindi Ring Road. The project has been established through private investment without imposing any financial burden upon the public exchequer. Therefore, if completed in accordance with the approved plans and applicable laws, it would not only facilitate lawful commercial activity but would also serve the convenience of the travelling public. On this point, already this Court in the judgment reported as “Muhammad Tahir Jamal Advocate v. Government of Punjab, etc.” (PLD 2020 Lahore 407) has discussed in detail the Islamic concepts regarding Travellers’ rights in Islam and right to movement under the Constitution. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:

16.Article 15 of the Constitution provides that every citizen has a fundamental right to freedom of movement throughout Pakistan subject to restrictions imposed by the law. Providing an appropriate safe passage to travel throughout the country is a responsibility shouldered upon the state and the NHA created under the National Highway Authority Act, 1991 which was established for the very purpose of planning, development, operation and maintenance of the National Highways and strategic roads to provide safe, time efficient and better road facilities of international standards to travellers/ commuters /passengers so that they can exercise their right of movement in a more better way. Different phases of Motorways are also constructed by the NHA to undertake this very purpose at the

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

level of utmost excellence because the NHA is custodian of the Highway assets of Pakistan’s road network and committed to provide a safe, modern and efficient transportation system.

21.Article 26 of the Constitution guarantees that there must be no discrimination against any citizen regardless of race, sex, caste, religion or place of birth to access places of public entertainment or resort.

25.Travelers in Islam are known as Musafir or Guest which has been defined in Holy Quran and Sunah as “WAYFARER”. Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) reminded us of the high status of one who treats his guest well when he said, “... Let the believer in God and the Day of Judgement honor his guest.” Treating guest or traveler well is the most important beliefs in Islam, belief in God and belief in the Day of Judgement.

b. According to Hadith A well-known Hadith with respect to Travelers’ right is quoted here under:

Abu Hurairah reported the Prophet (SAW) saying: “He, who believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him show the hospitality to this guests...” (Bukhari and Muslim) Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf in his commentary in Riyad-us-Saliheen states: “To honour a guest means to welcome him cheerfully, entertain him happily, and have full regard of his comfort and rest.”

23.In view of the foregoing discussion, in order to advance the cause of justice and to the prevent miscarriage of justice, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondents to restrain from threatening, cancelling, withdrawing, reviewing or frustrating the NOC dated 28.01.2026 and the allied approvals granted in favour of the Petitioner without following the due process of law. They are further restrained from causing any obstruction, demolition or interference in the Petitioner's lawful development activities except strictly in accordance with law.

24.The Respondent No.1/RDA and all other concerned Respondents are directed to honor and implement the approvals already granted, to facilitate

W.P. No.2335 of 2026

completion of the approved project in accordance with law and to proceed with the construction and completion of the approved access road/right of way, subject to payment of the prescribed charges, if any, by the Petitioner under the applicable rules and regulations.

25.The Petitioner shall also ensure that the proposed service areas are developed strictly in accordance with the approved plans and applicable laws by providing appropriate public facilities, including adequate plantation, landscaping, parking areas, public conveniences, drinking water, a mosque, electric vehicle charging facilities, environmental safeguards and other amenities for the benefit, safety and convenience of the travelling public, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in Muhammad Tahir Jamal Advocate's case (supra).

Copy dasti on payment of usual charges.

(JAWAD HASSAN)

JUDGE

[email protected]