1984 PLP 1345 (CLC)

‑‑Read with Emigration Rules, 1979, r. 8 (5)‑Provisional Consti tution Order (l of 1981), Art. 9‑Overseas Employment Promoters Recruiting Licence‑Licence not transferable‑Licence issued in name of firm‑Cannot be renewed or issued in name of firm differently constituted as would amount to transfer of licence Amount of security deposited not by or on behalf of firm as consti tuted at time of issuance of licence‑Renewal of licence in circum stances, held, rightly refused. NAIMUDDIN, J.‑By this constitution petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, the petitioners seek declaration that the petitioners' firm validly deposited the requisite security amount of Rs. 100 through one of its partners within the time allowed by the respondents and, therefore, the firm is entitled to the Overseas Employment Promoters Licence, and for a direction to the respondents to issue the requisite licence as applied for in the letter, dated 16th May, 1981, forthwith. The petitioners' case is that they are the partners of "Baloch Business Bureau", dealing in the recruitment of personnel for employ ment abroad. Originally there were three partners in the firm, namely Haji Muhammad Baloch, Hasan Ali and Shabzad Ali Khan, but sub sequently, Abdul Shakoor Khan and Abdul Qayyum Khan became partners in place of Hasan Ali and Shahzad Ali Khan. The petition ers firm had a valid licence No. 572/Kar/79, dated 20th March 1979, issued by the respondents. During the subsistence of the licence on 23rd March",1979, the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was promulgated where under the overseas employment promoters were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as security amount for the licence. But Petitioner No. 1 failed to deposit requisite licence fee, and therefore, his licence was cancelled. On 5th September, 1979, the petitioners firm filed a Constitution Petition being No. D‑1445 of 1979, in this Court challenging the order, dated 1st August, 1979 whereby petitioner No. 1's licence was cancelled, on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice and praying for grant of permanent injunction in favour of Petitioner No. 1 restraining and prohibiting the respondents, their agents, servants, officers, employees, subordinates and/or other persons claiming through or under them from giving effect to and putting the impugned order; decision into operation, disentitling petitioner No. 1 to carry on his business of passage brokerage. During the pendency of the said petition on 29th March, 1983, petitioner No. 1 moved an application under Order V1, rule 17, C. P. C. for joining of Abdul Shakoor Khan and Abdul Qayyum Khan, partners of Baloob Business Bureau, as co‑petitioners which was allowed by the order, dated 14th April, 1981, subject, however to all just exceptions that ,1 may be raised at the time of final bearing of the petition. However, after issuance of the following Press release, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXIII, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C. P C. for withdrawal of the petition which was allowed and accord ingly dismissed. The Press Release reads as follows :‑ " RENEWAL OF RECRUITING LICENCE: "DEADLINE‑JUNE 1 Islamabad, May 3 : The Overseas Employment Promoters who held valid licences for 1979, have been allowed to deposit Rs. one lakh by June 1, and get their licesnces restored, says an official handout. The facility is being provided to all those promoters who had valid licences for 1979 but their licences were cancelled or not issued in 1980 because of their failure to deposit the enhanced security of Rs. one lakh by the stipulated date. The ex‑overseas employment promoters failing in this category will be required to pay late fee and renewal fee for the years 1980 and 1981 before the cases for issue of licences are considered. No further extension will be given or appeals accepted after June I, 1981, for depositing enhanced security." The above‑quoted Press release was followed by the Director General's letter, dated 10th May, 1981, addressed to petitioner No. 1 requiripg him to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 in the Habib Bank Limited, Super Market Branch, Islamabad before 2nd June, 1981, and informing him that further action would be taken on the petitioner depositing the amount. The petitioner was also required to pay renewal fee as well as late fee for the year 1980‑

81. The petitioners claim that persuant to the said circular they deposi ted the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 but to their surprise they received the letter No. 15‑1 (0572)Kar/82/272, dated 15th July, 1981, from the res pondents stating that they had failed to deposit the required enhanced amount of security of Rs. 1,00,000 before due date and as such the case had become time‑barred and that the amount of Rs 1,00,000 deposited as security by Abdul Shakoor Khan could not be accepted as he was not an approved partner. It may be stated that this letter was not addressed to the Petitioners either in the name of the firm or in their individual names but was addressed only to Ha‑ii Muhammad Baloch, petitioner No.

1. On receipt of the above letter the petitioners have filed the present constitution petition. The first question for consideration is whether the licence was in the individual name of petitioner No. 1 or in the firm name for, if the licence was in petitioner No. 1's individual name then the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was not admittedly deposited by or on behalf of petitioner No. 1 and accordingly the directions of the respondent were not complied with. Consequently, the licence could not be issued. The second question for consideration is if the licence was issued to the firm, who were the partners of the firm and whether the licence could be issued to or renewed in favour of a firm wherein some of the partners were different from the partners when the licence was first issued. In this connection the first document to be considered is the licence itself, a photostat copy whereof is annexed to the petition marked `A'. This licence has been issued in the name of "Mr. H. Muhammad Baloch of M/s. Baloch Business Bureau". It is, therefore, clear that it was issued in favour of an individual and not in favour of the firm. The letter, dated 5th July, 1981, which led to the filing of the present constitution petition is also addressed to petitioner No. 1 who is described as partner of Messrs Baloch Business Bureau, therefore, it is clear that the licence was held by and in the name of an individual and since the amount was not deposited by petitioner No. 1 or any one else on his behalf, the licence was rightly refused. It may be recalled that the first petition was filed by Haji Muhammad Baloch and joining of Abdul Shakoor Khan and Abdul Qayyum Khan as parties thereto subject to all just exceptions did not alter the fact that licensee was Haji Muhammad Baloch. However, Mr. Saleem has pointed out that to the counter‑affidavit is stated that licence No. 572/Kar/79 was granted to Messrs Haji Muhammad Baloch, Hasan Ali Baloch and Shahzad Ali Khan as would appear from their original application filed by them for the grant of licence. Although this statement is contrary to what is stated in the licence itself, for the licence is not in the firm name namely : Messrs Baloch Business Bureau or in the names of Haji Muhammad Balocb, Hasan Ali Baloch and Shahzad Ali Khan. But even if we accept this statement to be correct, the amount was not deposited by any or on behalf of above‑named three partners. It is petitioner's own case that the amount was deposited on behalf of the firm by Abdul Shakoor Khan but the firm as now constituted is not the firm registered with the respondent and under the terms of the licence as well as under rule 8 (5) of the Emigra tion Rules, 1979, the licence is non‑transferable. Therefore, if the licence was originally issued in the name of the firm as then constituted, con sisting of petitioner No.

1. Hasan Ali and Shahzad Ali Khan, it could not be issued or renewed in favour of another firm consisting of Haji Muhammad Baloch, Andul Shakoor Khan and Abdul Qayyum Khan for that would amount to transfer of the licence from one firm consisting of Haji Muhammad Baloch, Hasan Ali and Shahzad Ali Khan, to another firm consisting of Haji Muhammad Baloch, Abdul Shakoor Khan, and Abdul Qayyum Khan and since admittedly the amount was not deposited by or on behalf of the firm as constituted at the time of issuance of the previous licence the respondents were within their rights in refusing to issue or renew the licence and in our opinion the letter dated 15th July, 1981, to that effect is perfectly in order. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it. However, in the circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs A. E. Petition dismissed.