LAHORE (Muhammad Ashfaq) — The Lahore High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition filed by a taxi driver seeking restoration of his airport entry pass and taxi sticker for operating at Allama Iqbal International Airport.
The court ruled that permission to enter the restricted and sensitive airport area is not a permanent or legal right of any individual but a regulatory privilege, which airport authorities may issue, suspend or revoke in accordance with the law.
In a detailed nine-page written verdict, Justice Raheel Kamran rejected the petition filed by Allah Bakhsh and others, observing that the airport manager lawfully exercised powers under the Pakistan Airports Authority Act 2023 in deciding not to restore the petitioner’s entry pass and taxi sticker.
The judgment stated that no legal, constitutional or procedural violation was established in the decision.
According to the ruling, the airport administration made the decision after reviewing complaints of misconduct with passengers, violations of airport discipline, multiple complaints, reports submitted by the Airports Security Force and other relevant records.
The court observed that the decision was not based on a single complaint but on an overall assessment of the available record. It further held that under the Pakistan Airports Authority Act 2023, the airport manager is not merely an administrative officer but a statutory authority responsible for airport security, passenger facilitation, discipline and safe operations.
The court noted that permission to operate taxi services inside the airport is not a matter of private contract but one involving public interest and security-related legal authority.
In the verdict, the court further stated that the freedom to conduct business under Article 18 of the Constitution is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law.
It observed that the petitioner had not been barred from operating a taxi business altogether but was only denied access to the airport’s restricted area, which constitutes a reasonable restriction in light of security and administrative requirements.
The court also noted that the petitioner failed to prove discriminatory treatment or establish that similarly placed taxi drivers were treated differently.
It added that mere allegations of bias or monopoly, without concrete evidence, cannot justify constitutional intervention. The court emphasized that judicial review is not meant to replace an administrative decision but only to assess whether the decision was lawful, fair and based on relevant material.
As no bad faith, excess of authority or legal irregularity was proven in the case, the court held there was no basis for judicial interference.
While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that since an airport entry pass is a regulatory permission, the petitioner remains free to apply again in accordance with the law in the future.