BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan d/o Mohammad Hassan,

r/0House 95, Street 3, Sector B, Askari 14, Adiala Road, Rawalpindi..Petitioner

VERSUS.

Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

INDEX

Sr. Description Anne Date Page

No. x-ure Number
1. Writ petition along with Affidavit - -

2. Legal Notice to Respondents A -

3. Pakistan Telecommunication Re-organization Act, B

1996
4. Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2009 C
5. Exemption application along with Affidavit
6. Application for Interim Injunction along with
Affidavit
7. Vakalatnama

PETITIONER
Through

UMER GILANI,
BA-LLB (LUMS), LLM (UW)
Advocate High Court
House No. 45, Street 52,
F-7/4 Islamabad
Phone No: 0301-5011568
 BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan d/o ______, r/o House 95, Street 3, Sector B, Askari 14,

Adiala Road, Rawalpindi . Petitioner

VERSUS.

1. Pakistan Telecom Authority, through its Chairman

2. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology

and Telecom

3. CEO, Pak Telecom Mobile Limited (PTML) doing business as Ufone,

through its Chief Executive Officer

Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUION OF THE

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

Respectfully Sheweth:

I.

PARTIES

1. That the Petitioner is a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Pakistan)

having CNIC No. 5400-0410715-0. She is a graduate of the University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, USA, which she attended as a Fulbright Scholar from Pakistan and came

back with an MS degree in Natural Resources and Environment to serve the country

of her birth. She has residence in Rawalpindi but commutes every day to work as a

Environmental policy analyst in Islamabad in a consulting firm.

2. That Respondent No. 1 is Pakistan Telecom Authority (hereinafter Regulator or

PTA) constituted under Section 3 of the Pakistan Telecommunication

(Reorganization) Act, 1996 (hereinafter the Act). The PTAs primary mandate is,

in the words of Section 4 of the Act, to regulate the establishment, operation and

maintenance of telecommunication systems and the provision of

telecommunication services in Pakistan. Both because of its function i.e

regulation and because of the entire scheme of the Act which contains statutory

provisions related to tenure-protection of its members, the Authority is expected to

act with independence and in a way which will (c) promote and protect the

interests of users of telecommunication services in Pakistan (k) and protect

consumer rights. The consumers whose rights the PTA is supposed to protect

include around 70 million mobile phone users and around 3 million landline users.

Around 10 million of these mobile phone users use their phone not only for

communication but also for banking purposes.

3. That Respondent No. 2 is the Federal Government (hereinafter Government)

which is empowered under Section 8 of the Act to issue policy directives to the

Authority, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, on the matters relating to

telecommunication policy The Act provides an exhaustive list of issue on which

the Federal Government may, through the Ministry of IT & Telecom, issue policy

directives. These issues include, inter alia, requirements of national security and

of relationships between Pakistan and the Government of any other country or

territory outside Pakistan and other States or territories outside Pakistan.

4. That Respondent No. 3 is Pak Telecom Mobile Limited (PTML), a company

registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (hereinafter Telecom

Operator or Ufone). It holds various licenses issued by the Regulator, provides

telecom services all over Pakistan and does business as Ufone. It has its registered

office at Islamabad.

II.
FACTS
5. That as a citizen of Pakistan, the Petitioner is entitled to the entire scheme of

fundamental rights provided for in Chapter 1, Part II of the Constitution of the

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution). The Constitution has

expressly guaranteed to her the right to Due Process of Law (Article 4 read with

Article 10A) and has protected her rights to Life, Liberty (Article 9), Free Movement

(Article 15), Free Assembly (Article 16) , Free Association (Article 17), doing Business

or engaging in Trade (Article 18), Free Speech and Expression(Article 19) and

Accessing Information (Article 19A). The Petitioner believes that the Constitution

also guarantees to her a Fundamental Right to Telecommunication which, in todays

social context, is a logical and necessary corollary of the inter-woven rights expressly

mentioned earlier.

6. That in exercise of her fundament right to telecommunication, the petitioner

possesses and uses a SIM legally issued to her in her own name, having the phone

number: 0321 8144282. A sizeable part of the phone credit she buys is withheld as

sales tax owed by her to the Government.

7. That the Petitioners consumer history is testament to the fact that she is a law-

abiding telecom consumer and has never been convicted of using her phone in

contravention of the rules and regulations lawfully made by the PTA.

8. That up until recently, the general standard of services offered to the Petitioner by

the Telecom Operator remained excellent. The services provided to her were

reasonably priced, consistently available 24 hours of the day and 365 days of the

week and at par with the highest global standards. Therefore, over the course of last

four to five years, she developed a legitimate expectation that such services would

continue to be offered to her without interruption, for as long as she kept buying pre-

paid credit offered by the Telecom Operator, kept paying taxes to the Government

and abided by the rules and regulations of the Regulator.

9. That over the course of the last decade, the Telecom Operators, the Regulator and

the Government have, through their conduct and their official representations,

actively promoted the perception that mobile telecom services in Pakistan are
 reliable and that citizens and consumers can depend upon them even for the supply

of essential services. Because of these efforts, mobile telecom services have achieved

a level of penetration in our society never known before. Out of Pakistans 180

million citizens, around 70million are mobile telecom consumers; the number of

landline users, on the other hand, is less than 3 million. Today, even the highest

institutions of the State have come to rely upon mobile telecom services in the

discharge of their functions. For instance, both the Honble Supreme of Pakistan and

this Honble Court send SMS alerts to the learned advocates appearing before them.

Officers of the lower courts such as Readers and Naib-Courts use mobile phones to

liaise with witnesses and lawyers. Member of the police force, and others involved in

the discharge of essential services such as fire fighters also rely heavily upon mobile

telecom services.

10. As a result of the legitimate expectation that telecom services will be provided

without interruption, like many other citizens, the Petitioner has come to depend

heavily and exclusively upon these services.

11. That on 21st of March, 2016, however, the entire routines of her life suddenly came

to a grinding halt. For hours, the Petitioner didnt receive a single call and every call

she tried to dial failed to connect. She couldn't figure out the reason. Her Telecom

Operator generally sends her hundreds of messages every months, intimating her

about all sorts of recent discount schemes etc. However, no notice was given to her

regarding this most serious issue. Eventually, she made a conjecture that her phone

was not working because her telecom services had been suspended by the Telecom

Operator. That later on the 21st of March, services were thankfully resumed and the

Petitioner all breathed a sigh of relief. However, on 23rd March, 2016, as soon as the

Petitioner woke up, she discovered that her mobile phone was again suffering from

the same issue. For an unspecified number of hours on that day, her phone

connection again remained suspended. Then, suddenly, it sprung back to life. Again,

no explanation was offered, before or after the shut-down. Throughout the last week

of March, the Petitioners phone kept suffering similar shut-downs.

12. Rumors abound about the cause and legal justification of these shut-downs. But no

official has bothered to inform the Petitioner. There is speculation about the reason

about why her phone went down on the 21st of March and on the 23rd of March

year. It is speculated the Government wanted mobile telecom services in Islamabad

to be suspended in order to facilitate the military parade that was being held in a

certain part of Islamabad. The said parade could easily have been shifted to a less

densely populated area of the country, such as an Air Force base; in any case, it

cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered a sufficiently compelling reason

for infringing upon citizens fundamental right to telecommunication. The Petitioner

suspects that the Governments decision was conveyed to Regulator, rubber-stamped

by the Regulator and then implemented (without any written note of dissent) by her

Telecom Operator, all acting to her detriment.

13. Being a very peaceful and law-abiding citizen who has nothing to do with terrorism

etc., the Petitioner feels also aggrieved by the assumption that her access to mobile

telecommunication could possibly be considered a danger to the national security of

this country. Such an assumption cannot possibly be backed by any evidence.

14. During the period her telecommunication service was suspended, the Petitioners

quality of life was badly affected. Since her workplace is about 33km from her home,

she usually relies upon her mobile phone to communicate with her family. Her 7-

year-old daughter, Harir Zainab, goes to a school in Rawalpindi. She and her family

usually rely exclusively upon her mobile phones to stay in touch with her, while she

is in school. During the last week of March, the school decided to close down earlier.

Because the Petitioners mobile phone service was suspended, she had no way of

knowing this. This and other such incidents have caused her and her family a great

deal of anguish.

15. The Petitioner, being a rights-conscious citizen, is aware that many of her fellow

citizens had to suffer even more than she did because of the sudden suspension of

telecommunication services.
16. Down to this day, neither her Telecom Operator nor the Regulator nor the

Government have offered the Petitioner any official information regarding this

black-out: what was its cause, under what legal authority was it done, why was it so

necessary, how long did it last, what compensation would she and other telecom

consumers receive for her losses, when can she next expect such a shut-down?

17. That because of the without-notice, frequent and prolonged suspension of telecom

services which she suffered last month, the Petitioner now feel anxious all the time.

She keeps periodically checking her phone to see if the service is still on. She does

know not when the next black-out will happen and on what pretext. Since she is no

longer able to depend upon telecom services, she feels compelled to re-arrange the

entire routines of her life around this unfortunate reality. Unless and assurance to

the contrary is given, the Petitioner will have to re-invest time, effort and money in

developing alternative channels of communication.

18. That as a citizen who is fully informed of her fundamental right to

telecommunication, as well as her rights under various provisions of the

Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, Telecommunication (Consumer

Protection) Regulations, 2009 and other relevant laws, the Petitioner emailed to the

Respondents a Legal Notice/Complaint on April 3, 2016 which she was also mailed

to the Respondents via TCS courier service. In her Notice, the Petitioner demanded

that the Respondents:

i. Tender an unqualified apology for the arbitrary suspension of

services that have been inflicted upon her and other citizens thus far; and

ii. Provide her and other citizens with a complete list of occasions

over the last five years on which the penalty of suspension of services has

been inflicted upon us; the list must be accompanied by an explanation,

both factual and legal, for each and every such suspension; and

iii. Provide a guarantee that, in the future, as a rule, such suspension

will never again take place, except in the narrow circumstances provide for
 under Section 54(3) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization)

Act, 1996. In other words, provide a guarantee that the penalty of

suspension of services will not be inflicted unless the following three prior

requirements are met with: (a) the President of Pakistan issues a written

and reasoned Proclamation of Emergency in terms of Part X of the

Constitution, (b) the Regulator subsequently issues a written and reasoned

notification regarding suspension of services strictly under Section 54(3);

and (c) the Telecom Operator duly conveys this notification to the users

ahead of the suspension; and

iv. Award compensatory and exemplary damages to her and to all her

fellow citizens for the violation of our fundamental right to

telecommunication as well as our rights under other laws.

(Copy of Legal Notice is Annex A)

19. Despite the last of more than 15 days, none of the Petitioners has complied with the

demands put forth in the Legal Notice/Complaint nor have they offered any

explanation whatsoever. Thus, the Petitioner is left with no adequate alternative

remedy but to approach this Honble Court for the vindication of her constitutional

and legal rights.

III.
GROUNDS
That the Respondents suspension of the Petitioners mobile telecom services (the

impugned action) is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires and is liable to be

declared as such on the following grounds:

A. The Impugned Action violates the Petitioners Fundamental Right to

Telecommunication

The Constitution expressly guarantees of the Petitioner as to all citizens the right to

Due Process of Law (Article 4 read with Article 10A), Life, Liberty (Article 9), Free

Movement (Article 15), Free Assembly (Article 16), Free Association (Article 17), doing
Business or engaging in Trade (Article 18), Free Speech and Expression (Article 19) and

Access to Information (Article 19A). The Petitioner believes that the Right to

Telecommunication is, in todays social context, a logical and necessary corollary of the

rights expressly mentioned above.

The Petitioners claim to a Fundamental Right to Telecommunications is fortified by a

vast body of Supreme Court precedent starting from Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994

SC 693). The superior courts of this country have always favoured an expansive and

dynamic interpretation of fundamental rights and in Erum Heights Welfare

Association v. KESC (2001 CLC 321), Judicial Activism Panel v. Government of

Pakistan (P L D 2014 Lahore 623) Rental Power Plants case (2012 SCMR 773) and

Human Rights Case No.14392 of 2013 (2014 SCMR 220), they have included access to

utilities like gas and electricity a part of fundamental right. In the last cited case, the

Honble Suprme Court held:

[T]she provision of electricity comes under the guarantee of the right to

life enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution as interpreted in the
celebrated judgment of Shehla Zia v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994
Supreme Court 694).In the world of the 21 st century, it seems
unfathomable for life to carry on without the provision of an uninterrupted
supply of energy in the form of electricity.. [Therefore,] the provision of
electricity comes under the guarantee of the right to life enshrined in
Article 9 of the Constitution.

In Khawaja Asif v. Federation (PLD 2014 SC 206), the Supreme Court held:

The supply of LPG to a very large number of users, including those living
in far-flung areas, is a matter of public importance impacting their 'life' as
defined by this Court. Such supply, therefore, needs to continue unabated.
The Petitioners claim is further fortified by a large body of well-reasoned precedents

from comparable common jurisdictions. In Van Riper v. Traffic Telecom Workers of

N.J 2 N.J. 335 (N.J. 1949), the Supreme Court of New Jersey held:

In the economic and social life of today, however, communication by telephone is

a vital and indispensable essential to the health, safety and welfare of the public.
Without the almost instantaneous means of communication that the telephone
alone furnishes, our system of fire and police protection would be rendered
relatively ineffective and the health, safety and indeed the life of the individual
citizen would be gravely endangered. It is unrealistic in this day and age to
suggest that if the telephone is not available one may send a telegram or a
messenger for a physician or a policeman or a fire truck. Any such line of
reasoning pressed to its logical conclusion would require the State to surrender
all of the advances of modern science for a return to the Stone Age.

In Pike v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company 81 So. 2d 254 (1955), the

Supreme Court of Alabama held:

[D]epredations of a subscriber's legal right to telephone service constitute a

denial of due process guaranteed by the Constitution of 1901, art. 1, 6. The
gratuitous and arbitrary action of a police official is no justification for an
abridgement of this right.

To sum up, the impugned action amounts to a restriction on the Petitioners

fundamental right to telecommunication. It is settled law that the courts must guard

fundamental right jealously and view restrictions placed on them suspiciously. Such

restrictions can only be tolerated if they are backed by a compelling governmental

interest, are imposed in a way which is narrowly tailored and the benefit accruing to

society from these restriction vastly exceeds the harm caused to the individuals.

In the present case, the impugned action does not meet any of these criteria: (i) it was

not backed by the Act, as elaborated below; (ii) it was not narrowly tailored; and (iii) the

harm caused, and potentially caused, by it to the rights of individuals vastly exceeds any

possible societal good achieved by it.

B. The Impugned Action is Ultra Vires the procedure laid down in Section

54(3) of the Act

The simplest and clearest argument against the impugned action of the Respondents

comes from Section 54(3) of the Pakistan Telecommunications (Reorganization) Act,

1996 which may be reproduced here:

54. National Security. (3) Upon proclamation of emergency by the
President, the Federal Government may suspend or modify all or any order or
licenses made or issued under this Act or cause suspension of operation,
functions or services of any licensee for such time as it may deem necessary.

Provided that the Federal Government may compensate any licensee whose
facilities or services are affected by any action under this sub-section.
(emphasis supplied)

It is clear from the text of Section 54(3) that the only situation where telecommunication

services to consumers can legally be suspended is when the a Proclamation of

Emergency has been issued by the President. It follows from Section 54(3) that under

no other exigency can the Respondents exercise the power of suspension of service. The

maxim of statutory interpretation being: expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the

expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other).

It may be recalled that the phrase Proclamation of Emergency refers to the extrao-

ordinary power which the President can exercies under Article 232 of the Constitution,

upon the Prime Ministers advice. In the last ten days March, 2016, no such

proclamation had been made. Therefore, the impugned action was clearly ultra vires

Section 54(3) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Petitioner contends that the mere possibility that a telecom

consumer might have a criminal intention is not sufficient grounds for the telecom

Regulator or the Operator to suspend services services to her. This is simply not the

function of the telecom Regulator or the Operator; it is the function of the Police

Department, the District Administration and other law enforcement agencies. Under

our law, the latter agencies already possess powers of preventive action. If necessary,

they are very much entitled to put a mob of people under arrest in order to prevent a

possible law-and-order breakdown. Vesting the Telecom Regulator and Telecom

Operators with such powers in not necessary and would be a needless infringement

upon the fundamental rights of citizens.

In People v. Brophy Cal. App. 2d 15 (1942), the California Court of Appeals. Second

Dist., Div. One emphasized this point:

Public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private
morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public
or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands. The telephone
company has no more right to refuse its facilities to persons because of a belief
that such persons will use such service to transmit information that may enable
recipients thereof to violate the law than a railroad company would have to refuse
to carry persons on its trains because those in charge of the train believed that the
purpose of the persons so transported in going to a certain point was to commit
an offense...

C. The Impugned Action violates Telecom Consumers Statutory Right to

Uninterrupted Service and a speaking order

The Act places upon the Regulator the duty to (c) promote and protect the

interests of users of telecommunication services in Pakistan (k) and protect

consumer rights. In the discharge of this statutory duty, the Regulator has framed

Telecom Consumers Protection Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter the Regulations).

The Regulations prescribe a strict procedure for suspension of service. This

procedure binds both the Operators and the. Regulation 7 states:

Suspension and Disconnection of Service.--(1) Subject to prior

communication of suspension and disconnection policies to the
Consumer, an Operator may suspend or disconnect a rendered Service in
accordance with their policies.

(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of sub-regulation (1)

above, Operators shall give fifteen (15) days prior notice to Consumers in
case of suspension or disconnection of Services, not less than once by any
of the following mans: (i) personal service; (ii) registered/courier mail;
(iii) telephone; (iv) fax transmission; (v) electronic mail; (vi)
invoice/bill; and (vii) short messaging service.
 Provided that the Operator shall clearly communicate the reasons for
suspension/disconnection to the Consumer along with the actions
required on the part of that Consumer to avoid such suspension /
disconnection.

(3) The Operator shall not suspend or disconnect a Service to a Consumer

on account of which the Consumer has paid all the dues, even if the
Consumer has defaulted in the payment of the Operator in relation to
some other Service(s).
Provided that an Operator may suspend/disconnect all connections
of an individual Service to a Consumer, which are subscribed by that
Consumer in her own name and the default is not cleared for any one of
such connections.

(4) The Operator shall not deny access to emergency numbers to

Consumer, where the Service is suspended for any valid reason.

(5) The Operators shall restore Services to a Consumer within twenty four
(24) hours from when the Consumer has taken all remedial steps, to the
satisfaction of the Operator, in order to rectify the matter resulting in such
suspension or disconnection by the Operator.

To sum up, even where the Operator or the Regulator have a valid ground for

suspension of service, the Regulations made by the Regulator itself, require the

following three prerequisites: (i) 15 days prior notice must be given to the consumer; (ii)

a reasoned order must communicated to the consumer explaining why the service will

have be suspended; and (iii) the consumer must continue to have access to Emergency

Numbers, even when service has otherwise been suspended. These requirements,

written down in Regulation No. 7, are a corollary of the principles of natural justice as

well as the requirements of Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which may be

reproduced below:

24A. Exercise of power under enactments. (1) Where, by or under any

enactment, a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any
authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly
and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.

(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction
under the powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary
 or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for
issuing the direction.

(3) Where any order made or any direction given in exercise of the powers
conferred by or under an enactment affects any person prejudicially such person
may require the authority, office, or person making the order or giving the
direction to furnish the reasons for the order or, as the case may be, the direction
and such authority, office or person shall, furnish the reasons to such person.

The impugned action violated all of these legal requirements. No reasoning was given to

the Petitioner, who is a consumer prejudicially affected by the suspension of service nor

was any notice period allowed. The suspension of service was absolute; during this

period, she could not even dial emergency numbers.

D. The impugned action is illegal because of such further grounds as may

be added at the time of oral arguments.

IV.

PRAYER

That in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that

this Honble Court may be pleased to:

a) declare the suspension of mobile telecom services in Islamabad in the

last ten days of March, 2016 by the Respondents (impugned

action) as unconstitutional being violative of the Petitioners

Fundamental Right to Telecommunication under Articles 4, 9, 10A, 15,

16, 17, 18, 19 and 19A of the Constitution read together; and

b) declare the impugned action as ultra vires Section 54 of Pakistan

Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, since it was done

without having met the threshold statutory requirement of issuance of

Proclamation of Emergency by the President; and

c) declare the impugned action as an infringement on the Petitioners

rights as a telecom consumer under the Pakistan Telecommunication

 (Reorganization) Act, 1996 read together with Telecom Consumers

Protection Regulations, 2009, Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act,

1897 and the requirements of natural justice, since she was not given

due notice, a reasoned order nor afforded a fair hearing before the

imposition of this penalty upon her; and

d) direct the Regulator to ensure that unconstitutional and illegal acts like

the impugned action are not be repeated; and

e) direct the Respondents to jointly pay compensation to the Petitioner

owed to her under public law for the infringement of her Fundamental

Right to Telecommunication.

f) direct the Regulator to exercise its functions under Section 4 of the Act

in a way which shows judicious application of regulatory mind, due

concern for the rights of consumers and citizens and independence

from governmental interference; and

g) grant such other relief available under the law as this Honble Court

may deem necessary for enforcing the fundamental rights of the

petitioner and of all the other citizens of Pakistan.

PETITIONER

through,

Pir Khizar Hayat, Bulent Sohail,

B.A-LLB (Shariah & Law), LLM LLB (New Brunswick), PGD (Lond.)

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

Haider Imtiaz Umer Gilani

BA-LLB (LUMS) BA-LLB (LUMS), LLM(UW)

Advocate High Court Advocate High Court

CERTIFICATES:

Certified that

1. As per instructions, this is the first petition in this Honourable Court on the

subject above.

2. The petition has arisen out of violation and non-fulfilment of the provisions of

law and the petitioner has no other alternate, efficacious or speedy remedy

available.

ADVOCATE

BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan ..Petitioner

VERSUS.

Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUION OF THE

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

AFFIDAVIT

I, , do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that the contents of my accompanying

Writ Petition are all true and correct according to the best of my knowledge and belief

and nothing has been concealed from this Honourable Court.

Deponent

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this ________ Day of April 2016 that the contents of

my above affidavit are all true and correct according to the best of my knowledge and

belief and that nothing has been concealed from the Court.

Deponent

BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan ..Petitioner

VERSUS.
 Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES

Respectfully sheweth:

It is respectfully requested that since the applicant is unable to provide certain

certified copies of the annexed documents, therefore, the applicant may be

exempted from filing the certified copies of the documents appended with the

Petition and the same will be submitted as soon as possible.

UMER GILANI,

BA-LLB, LLM

Advocate High Court

F-24, Afzal Center, Opposite

Islamabad High Court, G-10/1

Phone No: 0301-5011568

BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan ..Petitioner

VERSUS.

Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

 AFFIDAVIT

I, Umer Gilani, Advocate High Court, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that the

contents of my accompanying application are all true and correct according to the best

of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed from this Honourable

Court.

Deponent

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this ________ Day of April 2016 that the contents of

my above affidavit are all true and correct according to the best of my knowledge and

belief and that nothing has been concealed from the Court.

Deponent

BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan ..Petitioner

VERSUS.
 Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUION OF THE

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2

READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC AND ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS
OF THE LAW

Respectfully Sheweth,

1. That the Applicant has filed the above captioned Petition today in this Honble

Court, the contents whereof may kindly be read as an integral part of this

Application.

2. That a temporary injunction in terms prayed for in this Application is necessary

to meet the ends of justice for reasons pressed hereinafter in this Application.

3. That during the last ten days of March 2016 the Respondents repeatedly inflicted

upon the Petitioner the penalty of arbitrary and without-notice suspension of

mobile telecom service (impugned action). Many other citizens in Islamabad

suffered a similar fate.

4. That because of the impugned action, the Petitioner suffered greatly. The

Petitioner works in Islamabad around 33 miles away from her home in

Rawalpindi. While she is at work, her only line of communication with her 7-year

old daughter is the mobile phone.

5. That because of the impugned action, the Petitioner was unable to contact her

young daughter nor was she able to access emergency services.

6. That on account of the Respondents sustained pattern of behavior, the Petitioner

has grounds to fear that they would repeat the impugned action.

GROUNDS
7. That from the contents of the Petition, it is evident that the Petitioner has a

GOOD PRIMA FACIE CASE:

(i) Section 54(3) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996

makes it clear that the only exigency in which services can be suspended is where

the President has issued a Declaration of Emergency.

(ii) The Telecom Consumer Protection Regulations, 2009 make it clear that even

where telecom services have to be suspended, access to emergency service must

not be blocked.

8. That it is clear that if temporary injunction is not granted, the Applicant could

suffer an IRREPARABLE LOSS. If the Petitioner or her daughter faces a

medical or other emergency during a period of suspension of services, their lives

and well-being could be seriously threatened.

9. That the BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE also lies in favour of the Applicant

because:

i. It would be extremely inconvenient, almost impossible, for the Applicant

and other members of our society to reverse their daily dependence upon

mobile telecom services. There are around 70 million citizens, including

the Applicant who use mobile telecom services; however, those who have a

landline number less than 3 million. Therefore, it is clear that even in

cases of emergency the vast majority of mobile users do not and cannot get

access to a landline.

ii. In addition, there are around 10 million mobile users, mostly poor people,

who use mobile money and depend upon mobile phone for their access to

finance; even the briefest suspension of services causes them tremendous

inconvenience.

iii. The Government and law enforcement agencies under its control can, On

the other hand, conveniently deal with internal security issues such as

political mobs and rallies through less intrusive technologies such as

jammers. Such technologies are already in use in the premises of the

superior courts.
 PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed in the interests of justice:

i. That during pendency of this Petition, Respondents may be restrained

from suspending mobile telecom services to the Petitioner and to all the

citizens of Pakistan, except if the President first issues a Declaration of

Emergency; and

ii. That during pendency of this Petition, even if President issues a

Declaration of Emergency and the Respondents lawfully suspend telecom

services, they may be directed to give written notice via SMS of such

suspension and its reasons to the Petitioner and to all the citizens of

Pakistan; and

iii. That Respondents may be further directed to, under all circumstances,

respect the fundamental right to telecommunication of the Petitioner and

all the citizens of Pakistan and therefore be restrained from suspending

emergency mobile telecom services.

APPLICANT

Masooma Hassan
 BEFORE THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

Writ Petition No. ________ /2016

Masooma Hassan ..Petitioner

VERSUS.

Pakistan Telecom Authority and Others Respondents

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION

151 CPC AND ALL OTHER ENABLING PROVISIONS OF THE LAW

AFFIDAVIT

I, ____________________, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that the

contents of my accompanying application are all true and correct according to the best

of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed from this Honourable

Court.

Deponent

Verified on oath at Islamabad on this ________ Day of April 2016 that the contents of

my above affidavit are all true and correct according to the best of my knowledge and

belief and that nothing has been concealed from the Court.
Deponent