Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SADIQ VS Respondent: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
1988 C L C 2125
1988 C L C 2125
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Abdullah, J
MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others‑‑Petitioners ‑
versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 425 of 1988, decided on 2nd February, 1988.
(a) West Pakistan Cotton Control Ordinance (RX of 1966)‑---
‑‑Ss. 2(n)(i) & 7‑‑West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966, Rr.8, 9 & 12‑‑Imposition of licence fees‑‑Order for‑‑Challenge to‑‑Petitioners running cotton seed oil factory contended that they were not under any legal obligation either to obtain licence for working of their factory nor were liable for imposition of licence fee under R.12 of Cotton Control Rules, 1966 on ground that they had been exempted from such liabilities under R.9 thereof‑‑Provisions of R.9 of Cotton Control Rules showed that Rule as a whole related only to installation of a new Cotton Seed Oil Factory and not related to existing factories‑ Factory of petitioners admittedly being 'Cotton Seed Oil Factory' within meaning of cls . (n) & (i) of S.2 of Ordinance (XX of 1966) , could not work without a licence and without payment of licence fee as provided in R.12 thereof‑‑Provisions of R.9, therefore, would not be applicable to case of petitioners‑‑Authority in circumstances had a right to call upon petitioners to obtain licences for working of their factory and was legally justified in calling upon them to pay fees prescribed in R.12.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Lawful and valid order passed by Authorities below within exercise of their jurisdiction, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
Resopndent No.3 in person. Date of hearing: 2nd February
JUDGMENT
The petitioners who are proprietors of and are running Cotton Seed Oil Factories have filed this writ petition .to challenge the imposition of licence fee under Rule 12 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966 on their factories. They have contended that under section 7 of West Pakistan Cotton Control Ordinance, 1966 (XX of 1966) they are not under any legal obligation to obtain licences for the working of their mills. The respondents contest the writ petition on the ground that under section 7 ibid read with Rules 8 and 12 of the said Rules the petitioners are legally required to obtain licences for working their Cotton Seed Oil Factories and are legally bound to pay the fees prescribed under Rule 12 ibid as amended up to date. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that under Rule 9 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Rules, 1966 framed under section 30 of the West Pakistan Cotton Control Ordinance, 1966 (XX of 1966) they are not obliged to obtain licences for their factories or to pay any licence fees for their Cotton Seed Oil Factories because Rule 9 ibid relates to only such Cotton Seed Oil Factories which are located within a Ginning or a Pressing Factory. He contends that the Cotton Seed Oil Factories of the petitioners are not located within any Ginning or Pressing Factories but are, on the other hand, working independently and only as Cotton Seed Oil Factories. The fact that they are working as independent Cotton Seed Oil Factories is not disputed or denied by the respondents. However, the learned Additional Advocate‑General argues that Rule 9 ibid has no application to the case because it relates to installation of a new Cotton Seed Oil Factory and not any already existing Cotton Seed Oil Factory. He means to say that a new Cotton Seed Oil Factory which is installed within a Ginning or a Pressing Factory has to pay the fees on such installation in addition to the fees prescribed for working of a Cotton Seed Oil Factory. A bare reading of Rule 9 clearly shows that the rule as a whole relates only to installation of a new Cotton Seed Factory (as also to Cotton Pressing and Cotton Ginning Factories) and it does not relate to existing factories. The said rule means to exempt the new Cotton Seed Oil Factories from licence fee etc. if the same are installed independently. Therefore, Rule 9 ibid has no application to this case. Clause (m) of section 2 of Ordinance XX of 1966 defines a 'Factory' and clause (i) of the same defines a 'Cotton Seed Oil Factory.' There is no dispute between the parties that the factories of the petitioners are a 'Factory' and a 'Cotton Seed Oil Factory' within the meaning thereof. Section 7 of the said Ordinance provides that no factory 'shall be worked' without a licence and without payment of fees as may be prescribed. Rule 8 of the said Rules provides that no Cotton Seed Oil Factory 'shall be worked' without a licence or without payment of licence fees as provided in the said Rules. Rule 12 ibid has prescribed the requisite fees payable under the said Rule 8. Therefore, the fees prescribed therein are payable by the Cotton Seed Oil Factories in view of the provisions of Rule 8 and section 7 ibid. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to put forward any other interpretation of the said Rules or the statutory provisions. Accordingly the Government and for that matter the respondent had a right to call upon the Cotton Seed Oil Factories of the petitioners i.e. the petitioners to obtain licences for the working of their factories and were legally justified in calling upon them to pay the fees prescribed in the Rule 12 ibid. The order of the Government, therefore, is lawful and valid and has, been passed within the exercise of their jurisdiction.
3. In view of my discussion above, the writ petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H . B . T . / M‑680 / L Petition dismissed.