P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

KHAMISANI, J.‑The petitioners in this case are a Public Company and had applied to the Director General, Supply and Development, Government of Pakistan, for permission to set up cement factory in District Jhelum. This permission was granted to them on 14th March 1953. The permission granted to them was, however, subject to a condition that the Govern ment reserved to itself the right to ask the petitioners to establish their factory at another place in the interest of rationalised dispersal of industries. A lot of proposals were given by the petitioners and a considerable correspondence went on between them and the Government. Ultimately on 23rd July 1955, the proviso contained in the permission granted to the petitioners on 14th March 1953 was deleted. Finally the permission granted to the petitioners was withdrawn on 29th August 1960. Press notification dated 8th July 1960 was also issued. It inter alia, stated as under: "Cases have come to the notice of Government where sanctions accorded to the setting up of industrial units dating as far back as 1953‑54 could not be implemented by the parties holding the sanctions for various reasons, mainly clue to lack of foreign exchange. Government have now decided that such permissions as could not be implemented until March 31, 1959 should be treated as withdrawn."

2. The petitioners have, therefore, brought this writ petition with a view to secure a writ of mandamus against the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 directing them to forward any of the schemes and import applications of the petitioners to respondent No. 4 for the grant of a licence for the import of complete plant and machinery for 600 tons cement factory with also orders to respondent No. 4 to issue the necessary import licence in their name.

3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, we asked him as to how was the Court competent to issue the writ prayed for. The learned counsel was not able to point out any rule or law under which it was the duty of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forward the petitioners' scheme and import application to respondent No. 4 for the grant of a licence for the import of machinery for 600 tons cement factory. He has also not been able to show, as to under what law can we direct the respondent No. 4 to issue the necessary import licence to the petitioners. The learned counsel instead of showing any law to us has relied upon a pamphlet issued by the Government with its title "Investment Opportunities in Pakistan". He has referred us to clause 4 of the Chapter in the pamphlet the heading of which is "Procedure and Regulations for Establishment of Industries". Clause 4 of this Chapter reads as under: "

4. Issue of Import Licences.‑An investor in possession of a permission from Government is required to send his import application for issue of import licence for plant and machinery. In cases where foreign investment is involved, the import application should be sent to the Director General, Invest ment Promotion Bureau, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, who will act as the sponsoring authority and forward the application to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Karachi for issue of necessary "Investment Import Licence. All import applications must be accompanied with the suppliers' original quotations for machinery, and a photostat copy of the Government's permission letter for the establish ment of the undertaking. The amount of the machinery to be imported should in no case exceed the amount originally applied for on Form `B'. Applications for import of plant and machinery for under takings in which no foreign participation is involved are to be forwarded to the authority granting the sanction for sponsoring. Import Licences for Raw Materials and Spares. An industrial undertaking whether foreign or local established in Pakistan, will make an application for import of raw materials to the Director of Industries, East/West Pakistan, Dacca/Lahore as the case may be. The issue of licences for raw‑materials devolves upon the Provincial Governments where the industrial unit is located. In the case of an industrial undertaking permitted to be located in Karachi, the application is to be made to the Director General, Investment Promotion Bureau, Ministry of Industries, Karachi." . We have failed to understand as to how, in the first instance, is this a rule or law which casts any duty on the respondents. It is too presumptuous to term this clause as a statutory rule. But even if it be construed to be so, it at best lays down the procedure for the applications for licences to be made. It nowhere says that the respondents will be under a duty or obligation to grant the licence to the petitioners.

4. Apart from this, the writ petition itself is not maintain able. The permission granted to the petitioners for setting up a factory has been admittedly withdrawn under a Press Note referred to above. The petitioners in this writ petition have never prayed for the quashment of the order under which the permission granted to the petitioners for setting up a cement factory was withdrawn. In the event of such a prayer having not been made how can a writ be issued to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 directing them to forward their scheme and the‑application for licences to respondent No.

4. The question of granting a licence for the Import of machinery and the plant to set up a factory cannot be conceivably considered in the event of the permission to set up that factory having been withdrawn. So long as the order of the withdrawal of the permission subsists the question of importing machinery and the plant for setting up that factory is out of question. We have on consideration of the facts of this case come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the writ petition. The learned counsel has placed before us two cases decided by the Supreme Court. One is Pakistan v. Hussain Ali (P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 310). This case has no application to the facts of the present case. The case decided by the Supreme Court relates to the cancellation of a licence granted pursuant to the declared policy of the Govern ment. The present case does not involve a cancellation of an import licence granted. The second case on which reliance has been placed is Faridsons Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (P L D 1961 S C 537). Even this case has no application. The principle contained in this ruling and which has been invoked is that "no man shall be condemned unheard". We are unable to see as to how this principle can be brought to the aid of the petitioners for the purpose of securing a writ prayed for.

5. In view of what has been said above, we are of the view that there is no substance in this writ petition. The writ petition is consequently dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.