1986 PLP 1031 (CLC)

Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 2‑ Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, r.16‑‑Business of manufacturing of grease without permission of Authority, held, could not be set up‑‑Interference made by Authority with regard to such business being carried on without requisite permission, would be in accordance with law. (b) Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1970‑‑ ‑‑‑R.17‑‑Manufacture of grease‑‑Application for permission Such application, held, could be made only as and when required by Authority‑‑Application made for manufacture of grease without invitation by Authority being in violation of r.17, rejection, thereof, would be satisfied in circumstances. ‑‑‑No. 30, para. 2(b)‑‑Production of grease‑‑Letter of Martial Law functionary in violation of Martial Law Regulation No.30, held, would have no effect even if such letter permitted manufacture/ production of grease‑‑Manufacture of grease without requisite permission would be penal under Martial Law Regulation No.30. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Carrying on of business in violation of law, held, could not be permitted by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction (1) W. P. No. 1109 of 1984. (2) W. P. No. 3435 of: 1985. (3) W.P. No. 640 of 1985. (4) W.P. No. 3406 of 1985. (5) W.P. No. 468 of 1985. (6) W.P. No. 2059 of 1984. (7) W.P. No. 2281 of 1984. (8) W.P. No. 2282 of 1985. (9) W.P. No. 2509 of 1984. (10) W.P. No. 3419 of 1985. (11) W.P. No. 3420 of 1985. (12) W.P. No. 3794 of 1985. (14)W.P. No. 3936 of 1985. (14)W.P. No. 3825 of 1985. (15) W.P. No. 3501 of 1985 (16) W.P. No. 3502 of 1985. (17) W.P. No. 3503 of 1985. (18) W.P. No. 3504 of 1985. (19) W.P. No. 3539 of 1985. (20) W.P. No. 845 of 1985. (21) W.P. No. 3233 of 1985. (22) W.P. No. 2878 of 1981.

2. The petitioners in all these cases are manufacturing grease through a process known as 'Open Kettle Process'. This grease is used in slow moving vehicles but the business of the petitioners is being interfered with by the respondents. The petitioners argue that they have no justification for doing so.

16. Permission Compulsory.‑‑(1) No person shall set up a blending plant or white oils production /plant or produce finished lubricating oils or (greases or white oils) for sale except with the prior permission in writing of the Authority. (2) No blending plant shall continue to function unless it obtains permission in writing of the Authority before the 31st day of March, 1974. Under rule 17 an application in this regard may be invited by the Authority through the Press as and when required.

4. Under' these rules it is evident that the petitioners, who do not have the permission of the Authority, cannot set up their business of manufacturing grease and if any interference is made by the authorities in this regard, it is in accordance with law. The learned Deputy Attorney General has also referred me to Martial Law Regulation No.30 published on 17th February, 1978. This regulation was given effect from 5th July, 1977. Under para. 2(c) of this regulation no one shall sell, purchase, reclaim, recondition or refine used lubricating oils without the prior permission, in writing, of the Federal Government under the Pakistan Petroleum (Refinding Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971. The petitioners therefore have obviously exposed themselves also to the penalties provided for under Martial Law Regulation No. 30'.

5. Mr. R.A. Awan, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has argued that no mineral oil is involved in the present cases. But he has not been able to show that mobile oil from which grease is being produced is not a mineral oil.

6. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2878 of 1981 is engaged in a similar business but his grievance is that they had applied for permission in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P. No. 7008 of 1979 and that the permission has again been refused through a stereo type order without any justification. In this regard rule 17 referred to above is relevant. It is admitted that the petitioner moved an application without being invited to do so while under rule 17 applications are invited as and when required. The rejection of the application which was made in violation of rule 17, therefore, was justified.

7. In W.P. No. 3233 of 1985 it has been pointed out that permission was granted. to the petitioners to carry on their business and that their business is being interfered with without any cause. In this regard they have referred to Annexure 'A' which is a letter of 25h November, 1984 written by one Major Shahid Rashid of the Headquarter Martial Law Administrator Zone 'A', Lahore. This letter is addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore. A plain reading of this letter does not have itself to the contention that this is a permission to carry on the business of production of grease. On the other hand, it only refers to the claim of the petitioners that they are not selling substandard/adulterated item and the letter urges upon the Senior Superintendent of Police not to harass them if the item being sold is not substandard. Besides, the learned Advocate‑General is quite right in suggesting that even if this letter is meant to be a permission he will disown it straightaway as this appears to be in violation of Martial Law Regulation No.30 referred to above. The case of these petitioners also, therefore, is not distinguishable from the rest of the petitioners. In view of the above considerations, it is clear that the petitioners cannot be permitted to carry on their business as it‑is in violation of the law. All these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A. Petitions dismissed.