1998 PLP 1546 (SCMR)

SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI. J.

The. petitioners challenged the validity of sub-rule (31 added to rule 6 of Tobacco Marketing Control Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be called as the Rules), through a petition filed before the Peshawar High Court, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as the Constitution), on the ground that the newly-added sub-rule (3) came in conflict with Articles 18, 23 and 25 of the Constitution besides being in violation of the provisions of Ordinance LXXXIV of 1968, M.L.O. 487 and the Tobacco Marketing Control Rules, 1993, A learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition with the following observation:-- "

15. Consequent upon what has been discussed above, both Writ Petitions Nos. 672 of 1996 and 707 of 1996 are hereby dismissed with direction that a copy of vouchers already submitted by the petitioners (Annexure 'G' on WP No. 707 of 1996) prior to the addition of impugned rule (3) of rule 6 in Tobacco Marketing Control Rules, 1993; if submitted to the Pakistan Tobacco Board shall serve the purpose of impugned rule/notification. "

2. The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Peshawar High Court. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that under the previous practice the petitioners while making payments of dues to growers of tobacco used to prepare two vouchers only. One voucher was retained by the petitioners while the other used to be handed over to the grower. Under the newly-added sub-rule (3), the petitioners now have to prepare two extra copies of vouchers, one for the Pakistan Tobacco Board and the other for the bank. According to the learned counsel, the preparation of these two extra copies of vouchers has placed extra financial burden on the petitioners which may run into million of rupees, thereby violating the guarantees provided to the petitioners for freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution. The impugned sub-rule (3) reads as follows:-- "(3) All the Tobacco Companies and other purchasers shall issue vouchers to the growers having printed book No. Voucher No. and name/place of the purchaser centre and a copy of each voucher issued to the owners shall be supplied by the Tobacco Companies/purchasers to the Pakistan Tobacco Board and the concerned Bank branch."

3. We are unable to understand how the above sub-rule could be held to be discriminatory under Article 25 of the Constitution or contrary to freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution. The above-quoted sub rule is only regulatory in nature and prescribed the method and mode of payment of dues by the petitioners to growers to tobacco. The above sub-rule nowhere prohibits or restricts the carrying on of lawful trade of cigarettes manufacturing by the petitioners. Similarly above sub-rule in its application is not restricted to petitioners alone but applies to all Tobacco Companies and other purchasers of tobacco from the growers, as a class. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to demonstrate that placing the Tobacco Companies and purchasers of tobacco in a class is not a reasonable classification, having no nexus with the object of the newly-added sub-rule (3). We, therefore, find no force in the above submission of the petitioners.

4. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the above petition is that the newly-added sub-rule (3) ibid has placed extra financial burden on the petitioners as instead of two copies of vouchers, they have now to prepare four copies of the same while making payments to the growers. The petitioners under the old practice used to prepare two copies of the payment vouchers for making payments to the growers. Under newly-added sub rule (3) they have now to prepare four copies of the vouchers. Therefore, the 8 new sub-rule (3) ~ ibid has. firstly not introduced any new practice in the trade carried on by the petitioners and secondly, mere fact that .as a result of introduction of new sub-rule (3), the petitioners have to bear extra expenditure is no ground to hold the rule as unconstitutional and in contravention of the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution.

5. No ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of High Court is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. A.A./P-12/S Leave refused.