- Advertisement -
LAHORE, Aug 07 (APP): The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Thursday dismissed a petition challenging the ban on keeping birds in areas surrounding the Lahore airport and other localities.
Justice Raheel Kamran Sheikh heard the petition filed by citizen Muhammad Mateen Afzal and others. During proceedings, Assistant Advocate General Punjab, Muhammad Usman Khan, appeared on behalf of the provincial government.
The petitioners’ counsel contended that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Punjab lacked authority to issue a notification declaring several areas, including the airport vicinity, as “No-Bird Zones.” The counsel argued that pigeons or other birds had never caused damage to aircraft.
The court, however, rejected the argument, remarking, “Do you want a disaster to occur first, and then an inquiry be held to find out whether a pigeon collided with the plane or not?”
The assistant advocate general opposed the petition, stating, “This is not just about a notification — it concerns compliance with international aviation safety agreements. Since January 2025, there have been 59 bird strikes involving aircraft — 2 within airport limits and 57 in other parts of Lahore.”
He further submitted that the petitioners had bypassed the Environmental Tribunal and directly approached the High Court, which was not legally permissible.
In response to the petitioner’s claim that the EPA lacked legal authority, the law officer stated that the question of jurisdiction should also be determined by the tribunal.
The court observed, “When a specialized tribunal exists, it must be approached first. The High Court will not interfere in this matter at this stage.”
When the petitioners’ counsel requested the court to direct authorities to allow representation before the concerned department, the judge refused, stating, “We will not issue such directions. Tomorrow, you may return with a contempt petition. You should approach the Tribunal instead.”
The petitioner’s counsel also urged the court to at least direct the police to respect the sanctity of privacy and household boundaries during enforcement.
At this, the court responded, “The court can only direct that police act within the bounds of law.”
The court concluded that the petitioners were free to take their grievances to the Environmental Tribunal and subsequently dismissed the petition.