4 FAO No. 42 of 2016. directions issued by the Authority are not supported by any law, rules or regulations; there is no provision under the Act of 1996 to empower the Federal Government or the Authority to direct the blocking of cellular mobile operations on the basis of mere apprehension e.g. to avoid any untoward incident; the expression ‘security of Pakistan’ defined under Article 260 of the Constitution has explicitly excluded public safety; suspension of services can only be ordered or directed under section 54(3) of the Act of 1996; reliance has been placed on the cases of “Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi and others“ [PLD 2016 S.C. 872], “Shahida Bibi and others v. Habib Bank Limited and others“ [PLD 2016 S.C. 995], “Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Zainab Bibi“ [2007 SCMR 1086]; The policy of the Federal Government has to meet the law laid down by the august Supreme Court in the case titled “Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others“[PLD 2016 S.C. 808]; the suspension of mobile phone services by the Authority is ultra vires of section 54; the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 10-A, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 19-A are violated when mobile phone users are deprived from availing the services; access to telecommunication services has become a fundamental right. 5. The learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the Authority has argued that; the Federal Government is