MUZAFFARABAD, Nov 28: A single-member bench of the AJK High Court here on Wednesday, dismissed a review petition against the order of the district magistrate whereby the owners of the snooker/billiard clubs and video game centres in his jurisdiction were prohibited from opening the same before 2 pm and after 10 pm.

The order was issued by the magistrate on October 10, in exercise of his powers under section 144, of the CrPC and was challenged by the Snooker, Billiard and Video Game Centres Association through its president Shoukat Butt and four others.

The petitioners’counsel argued that running of business was fundamental right of the citizens, which was infringed upon by the magistrate through the impugned order.

He also contended that the order had been issued without any notice to the petitioners.

However, the advocate general pleaded that the order had not prohibited the business, but regulated it, hence no right of the petitioners was infringed.

He contended that it was due to rapid growth of snooker clubs and video game centres that the youngsters crowded in the streets creating problems for the people living around such centres. This also affected the academic activities of the children, he added.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the bench comprising chief justice Syed Manzoor Hussain Gillani held that the fundamental right of a citizen to run any business of his choice could not be disputed and no such restriction could be imposed which took away that right.

But, a right was subject to corresponding duty, he said, adding where enjoyment of a right of a person infringed the right of another person or caused or had the tendency of causing injury, annoyance or nuisance to other person or persons, it (the right) could not be said to be absolute and ended where the right of other’s started.

“The purpose of this power is to free the society of menace, of disturbances and it is exercised against those who in the guise of the legal course affect the public comfort, safety and tranquillity.”

He held the petitioners’ plea that the order was issued without hearing them void and said it could hold good ground had it been for an individual person or shop. But since it extended to territorial limits of district Muzaffarabad, it was neither possible nor feasible for the administration to effect service upon every person.

The proclamation of the impugned order by beating of drums, publication in national and local newspapers and in the government gazette was sufficient service so as to make the order known to every person, as it was a regulatory order and applied to all and did not require personal hearing which was required in other individual cases, the CJ observed.