P L D 1969 Dacca 421 (PLP)

Commitments Registered Licences and Free List Progressive Total 1 31st July 1966 7,13,34,272 7,13,34,272 2 31st August 1966 14,41,02,707 21,54,36,979 3 30th September 1966 14,48,94,155 36,03,31,134 4 31st October 1966 12,96,23,930 48,99,55,064 5 30th November 1966 10,54,47,197 59,54,02,261 6 31st December 1966 11,01,70,217 70,55,72,478 7 31st January 1967 7,27,88,204 77,83,60,682 8 28th February 1967 2,80,65,034 80,64,25,716 9 31st March 1967 3,37,33,316 84,01,59,032 10 30th April 1967 7,53,22,30) 91,54,81,341 11 31st May 1967 3,84,16,784 95,38,98,125 12 30th June 1967 2,35,46,698 2,35,46,698 Total Commitments: 97,74,44,823 Total Allocation: 97,50,55,000 Certified to be true copy. (Sd.) MUHAMMAD IQBAL, Assistant Controller, Exchange Control Deptt. State Bank of Pakistan, Dacca". It is evident from the aforesaid two statements that the total foreign allocation made to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports for the shipping period in question was Rs. 97,50,55,U00 and the total commitments registered during the chipping period amounted to Rs. 97,74,44,823, that is, the commitments exceeded the allocations by Rs.23,89,

823. In these circumstances it is apparent that on the 25‑7‑67 when the hemionur's authorisation was returned unregistered the Foreign Exchange allocation for the period in question had been already exhausted; nay, the ceiling of the particular allocation had been exceeded by more than 23 lacs of rupees, and therefore, there was legal justifiaction for the refusal of the registration. On the materials placed before us we see no reason to disbelieve the statements made on behalf of the respondents in regard to the position of the Foreign Exchange on the relevant date. We, should, however, like to observe that it would have been better if the Dacca Office of the State Bank of Pakistan had acted in a straightaway manner and given reasons for not registering the authorisation in question at the time it was returned undregistered. The failure to supply the reason at the relevant time naturally gave rise to an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that there was no valid reason for refusing to register or that it was the victim of discrimination. Instead of allaying this apprehension the respondents further aggravated it by failing to furnish the relevant facts and figures in their first affidavit‑in‑opposition dated 10‑11‑

67. It was only when we had asked the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents to substantiate the statements made in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit that at long last the respondents produced the facts and figures contained in the supplementary affidavit of the respondents dated 22‑11‑67, and the two statements quoted above. Admittedly, however, the authorisation in favour of the petitioner was not the only one that had been returned unregistered. There were several others also belonging to 6 different parties that had been refused registration. We, therefore, do not think that the petitioner has been the victim of discrimination. We should further like to observe that it is indeed unfortunate that the petitioner who had taken the trouble of complying with all the provisions of law for obtaining the authorisation in question and obviously had spent time and labour for the purpose ultimately found that they were all fruitless. We think it is in the interest of everybody concerned that steps should be taken to avoid such frustration and to see that licences and authorisations or their validations are issued strictly in conformity with the availability of the Foreign Exchange allocation. In the facts and circumstances mentioned already we do not think that the impugned refusal was unjustified. The Rule is accordingly discharged. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. ABDUL HAKIM, J.‑I agree. A. E. Rule discharged.