1989 PLP 1068 (CLC)

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order of respondent No. 2 cancelling the drug‑sales licence No.989 as well as Licence No.‑990, both dated 1‑4‑1987 are wholly without lawful authority, inasmuch as, no notice was served on the petitioner nor was he afforded an opportunity before passing the orders therein, as required by Rules 66 and 85 of the West Pakistan Drugs Rules; 1958. Learned counsel further submits that although under Rule 85 of the West Pakistan Drugs Rules, 1958. an appeal is competent to the District Judge against the impugned order, yet as the impugned order alas violative of the principle of natural justice and, therefore, ‑the petitioner is competent to invoke the writ jurisdiction, particularly, when the District Judge, Sialkot, is stated to be on summer vacation in the month of August, 1988_ In support of his contention, he relied on Nagina Silk Mills, Lyallpur v . The Income Tax Officer P L D 1963 SC

322. The Murree Brewery Co, Ltd. v. Pakistan P L D 1972 SC 279 and Ch. Abdul Hamid v. Deputy Commissioner and others 1985 S C M R 359 wherein it was held that the High Court will not enter a writ petition when other appropriate remedy was available is not a rule of law barring jurisdiction but is a rule by which Court regulates its jurisdiction. It is further submitted that on identical question Writ Petitions Nos.2624 of 1987, 2687 of 1987, 2706 of 1987, 2738 of 1987, and 2996 of 1987 were entertained and eventually disposed of as having borne fruit, as the Licensing Authorities themselves withdrew the orders of cancellation.

2. There is no cavil with the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in appropriate cases this Court is competent to directly entertain writ petition, notwithstanding that the grievance can be redressed before an appellate forum.

3. Be that as it may, this is not a fit case for the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction, inasmuch as, Ch. Muhammad Sharif petitioner has frankly stated before me that he was arrested in some criminal case and confined in District Jail, Sialkot, from 22‑3‑1988 to 24‑7‑1988 and that sometime in April, 1988, he received an intimation from the District Health Officer, Sialkot, in the District Jail, Sialkot, that his licence has been cancelled. On receipt of papers from respondent No.2, he handed over the same to his brother Khalid Mahmood with the direction that he should keep those original papers with him and he will seek the appropriate remedy against i.e impugned p cancellation when he comes out of jail. lie was released from the jail on 24‑7‑1988 and thereafter approached this Court on 1‑8‑1988. It is well‑settled that the law helps the diligent and not the indolent. The petitioner was duly informed of the impugned cancellation of his licence in April, 1988, but he failed to seek the remedy against it for a period of about three months. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court for which no explanation has been given in the writ petition. The mere fact that the petitioner was confined in jail is not a sufficient ground for riot approaching this Court earlier. Further more, the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands by not tendering the original documents which were delivered to him according to his own statement in April, 1988, and stated to be still lying with his brother.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks short adjournment to place on record the original documents. I am, however, not inclined to adjourn the case. The writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine. M.Z.S./M‑1018/1 Petition dismissed.