RAWALPINDI – The Lahore High Court’s Rawalpindi Bench has admitted for hearing a petition challenging the indefinite closure of hotels, motels and guest houses across Rawalpindi amid security measures linked to long marches announced by Jamaat-e-Islami and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Justice Sadaqat Ali Khan heard the petition and issued notices to the Home Department, Rawalpindi Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and City Police Officer (CPO), seeking their responses.
The petition was filed by central traders’ association leader Ehteshamul Haq, who challenged the administration’s decision to keep hotels, motels and guest houses closed for an indefinite period.
The petitioner argued that businesses were already facing severe financial difficulties and that the continued closure of accommodation facilities was causing further losses to owners, employees and businesses associated with the hospitality sector.
The petition maintained that the closure orders had been communicated verbally by the administration and police rather than through formal written directives.
It urged the court to declare the indefinite closure of hotels, motels and rest houses illegal and direct the authorities to allow them to resume operations.
During the hearing, the court issued notices to the relevant government and police authorities. The respondents have been asked to explain the legal basis for the closure measures and provide their position before the court.
The petition was admitted for hearing, after which the court adjourned the proceedings without fixing a specific date for the next hearing.
The case comes amid preparations for political demonstrations and long marches in Rawalpindi, with authorities taking security measures in anticipation of possible gatherings and movement of protesters.
Hotel and guest house operators have raised concerns over the impact of prolonged closures on their businesses, particularly as the hospitality sector depends heavily on regular bookings and daily operations.
The petitioner has sought judicial intervention to prevent what he described as an unlawful and open-ended restriction on commercial activity in the city.
