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