1989 PLP 1789 (SCMR)
Messrs MAIRAJ DIN & SONS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1789 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs MAIRAJ DIN & SONS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1789 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1789 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1789 (SCMR) (Messrs MAIRAJ DIN & SONS‑‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Shaukat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment, dated 18‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.75/D of 1983). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petitioner‑firm was carrying on business of import of spirits on which embargo was placed with the enforcement of Prohibition Laws‑‑Petitioner firm was issued import licence in order to compensate it for the loss likely to suffer on account of embargo‑‑Value of import licence was reduced in the subsequent year to bring it at par with those granted to other new importers‑ High Court set aside judgments of both the Courts below passed in favour of the petitioner‑firm‑‑Petitioner‑firm was unable to indicate any provision of law upon which it rested its claim to an import licence of a value higher than what had been actually issued to it‑‑High Court was justified in setting aside the judgments of Courts below‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed being without force.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑Prior to 1977, the petitioner firm was carrying on the business of import of spirits. With the enforcement of the prohibition laws, an embargo was placed on the import of spirits. In order to compensate the petitioner firm for the loss it was likely to suffer on account of the said embargo, it was issued an import licence of the value of Rs. 15,000 for the year 1978‑79 for the import of arms and ammunition. However, in the subsequent year the value of the import licence was reduced to bring; it at par with those granted to other new importers. The petitioner firm protested against the reduction of the value of the import licence and made representations to the relevant Ministry but without any success. It then filed a civil suit to call in question the legality of the reduction of the value of import licences. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and its judgment was affirmed by the Additional District Judge. On a revision taken by the Federal Government, the High Court set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts and dismissed the suit. The petitioner firm now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. 2. 1n its written statement the case of the Government was that it was under no obligation to rehabilitate the erstwhile wine dealers. The petitioner firm had been issued a licence for the import of arms and ammunition of the value of Rs.15,000 on an ad hoc basis by the Ministry while the other firms in identical ' position were given licences at the flat rate of Rs.3,
500. The issuance of licence of the value of Rs.15,000 as a special case being a decision of ad hoc nature did not confer any right on the petitioner firm to get licences of the same value in the A subsequent year, nor was it entitled to a more privileged treatment than was meted out to similarly placed new importers.
3. On our inquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner firm was unable to indicate any provision of law upon which it rested its claim to an import licence of a value higher than what had been actually issued to it. The High Court was, therefore, justified to setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.A.K./M‑830/S Petition dismissed.