Kalabagh Kiosk owner earns judicial reprieve

Peshawar High Court restrains cantonment board from taking coercive action

ABBOTTABAD:

The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has ordered the immediate de-sealing of a food kiosk at Kalabagh and restrained cantonment authorities from taking any adverse or coercive action against the petitioner until further orders in a constitutional petition challenging the legality of the sealing operation.

The order was passed by a two-member bench comprising Justice Barrister Syed Mudassir Ameer and Justice Aurangzeb while hearing WP No. 876-A/2026 filed by petitioner Hukam Dad through his counsel, Barrister Hashim Khan Jadoon.

According to the petition, the petitioner had obtained lawful tenancy rights through an allotment letter issued on May 6, 2025, for a period of five years and had complied with all terms and conditions of the allotment without any default.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the notices issued by cantonment authorities violated Sections 179, 180, 181 and 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, as well as Article 10-A of the Constitution relating to fair trial and due process.

The petition stated that the petitioner was operating a rent-paying food kiosk near the Cantonment Board Rest House at Kalabagh after securing the site through public auction and was paying monthly rent of Rs183,000.

The cantonment administration alleged that the petitioner had constructed an unauthorised first floor over the kiosk. However, the petitioner denied the allegation, maintaining that only chairs had been placed on the rooftop sitting area and no additional floor had been constructed.

The petitioner further alleged that cantonment authorities had sought police assistance for sealing kiosks on April 9, 2026 - nearly 20 days before issuance of the petitioner-specific notice dated April 29, 2026 - indicating predetermination and mala fide intent.

Barrister Hashim Khan Jadoon argued that despite granting the petitioner 30 days for compliance, the authorities sealed the kiosk before expiry of the notice period and without issuing a reasoned order, thereby violating Articles 4, 10-A, 18, 23, 24 and 25 of the Constitution.

The petition also alleged discriminatory treatment, claiming another kiosk holder had been shifted to a commercially valuable location without a fresh public auction or transparent procedure, while the petitioner was selectively targeted.

During proceedings, counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in "State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan versus Director General Military Lands and Cantonments (2005 SCMR 177)."

After a preliminary hearing, the PHC observed that the issues raised required consideration and issued notices to the respondents, directing them to submit para-wise comments within a fortnight.