P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)

The Court, however, granted extension of time, as the view put forward in the order appealed against in regard to the question in dispute required to be re‑examined. Moreover, if leave was refused and the Government brought up the matter before the Supreme Court in another case, as it was open to it to do and if the decision in that case went in favour of Government, the decision which was the subject of present petition for leave to appeal would remain as an anomaly in the licensing system, which result, it was desirable to avoid. Bashir Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Ihsanul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed .by Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner. M. B. Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th February 1958. CORNELIUS, J.-This petition by the Superintendent of Central Excises, Lyallpur, is time‑barred by no less than 57 days. In the petition for condonation of the delay, it is explained that the time was needed for consultation in a number of offices including the Ministry of Law of the Pakistan Government, and for the engagement of special counsel. At the hearing, it was pleaded that questions of public importance are involved affecting a great number of similar cases. No extended period of limitation is provided for Governments, as litigants before this Court. This is because it is felt that enjoying unusual facilities for preparation and conduct of their cases, as against those available to private litigants, Governments do not need any greater latitude in respect of limitation than the ordinary litigant. The reasons advanced for the delay are not, in our opinion, convincing, and we wish to emphasize the necessity for as great vigilance on the part of Governments in these matters as the Court is entitled to expect from, and enforces against, private litigants. The question here is whether the calendering of mill‑made cloth for the purpose of sale is a process of manufacture. The Central Excise authorities claim that it is, and demand that such a process should be performed under a licence, which the no applicant, Ch. Faqir Muhammad, a calenderer, has not taken out. Upon a petition by Ch. Faqir Muhammad, the High Court of West Pakistan has issued a prohibition to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Lyallpur, against demanding that Ch. Faqir Muhammad should take out a licence. It is said that there are many other persons engaged in the same trade, and in other trades such as dyeing, printing etc., which appertain to the preparation of cloth for sale, whose occupations might he covered by the finding of the learned Judges in the High Court that :‑ "If the contents of the cloth do not change by the process of calendering . . . . . . I fail to see how that process can be deemed to be a process in the manufacture or production of the cloth". We consider that this view requires to be re‑examined. It is of course, open to the Government to bring up the matter before this Court in another case, but the decision in such a case, if favourable to the Government, will leave Ch. Faqir Muhammad's case as an anomaly within the licensing system. It is desirable that, this should be avoided, and we accordingly condone the delay in, the present petition, and grant special leave to appeal as prayed, but at the same time direct that the appellant shall bear the costs of this petition, as well as the respondent's costs in the appeal, irrespective of the result thereof, as a condition of the appeal being admitted. A. H Delay condoned.