Civil Appeal Nos.977 & 978 of 2018 and C.M.A. No.3658/2019 in C.A. No.978/2018 3 pertinent to highlight that the area of Karachi is all five districts.” 3. It is common ground that the events that invite such directions are invariably related to national security or public safety. What is disputed by the respondent licensee who succeeded before the learned High Court is the extent of such restrictions in terms of time, space and type of services that are blocked. Specifically, the respondent licensee had challenged the suspensory directions dated 28.03.2016. The first direction was sent at 12.27 am: “It is requested to block all cellular mobile (2G/3G/4G/LTE) Voice & Data services in 10km radius around D-Chowk, Red Zone, Islamabad to avoid any untoward incident by 0030 hrs on March 28 2016 and control spill over sites as well. The services would remain blocked till further notice.” This was followed by a further direction at 06.24 am: “Is requested to restore mobile services by 0700 hrs on March 28, 2016 and confirm through return email.” There is agreement between the parties that national security or public safety priorities should justify the imposition of such restrictions and directions. However, the respondent licensee contends that the Federal Government ought to have settled procedures and benchmarks to regulate its discretion. This is urged because the respondent has a right to do business and the sudden curtailment of its rights has negative implications. 4. The impugned directions dated 28.03.2016 under the policy directive dated 26.12.2009 were not impeached by the respondent licensee before PTA but were straightaway challenged before the High Court in an appeal filed under Section 7(1) of the