P L D 1966 Supreme Court 762 (PLP)

FAZL-E-AKBAR, J.

This order will dispose of 9 Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 62-D to 70-D of 1966 which are directed against one and the same judgment of the High Court of East Pakistan by which the writ petitions filed by these petitioners were dismissed. The said writ petitions raised a single question namely, whether rule 9(1) of the Customs House Agents (Licensing) Rules, 1965 was applicable to the renewed licenses. That question arose under the following circumstances: Each of the petitioners was granted a licence under Customs House Agents (Licensing) Rules, 1957 to act as Customs House Clearing Agent at Chittagong Port. In each case the licence was valid till 31st December 1965. On or about 15th July 1965 the Customs House Agents (Licensing) Rules, 1965 were notified in Gazette of Pakistan. These rules superseded the previous rules of 1957. The Assistant Collector of Customs (for Licences) Chittagong, by Notice No. 14, dated the 24th September 1965 set out the requirements for renewal of licences. One of the said requirements was that a licensee should comply with the following provisions of rule 9 (1) of 1965 Rules: "9(1) An applicant approved for the grant of a licence shall, within fifteen days of the communication to him of such approval. (i) deposit with the Chief Customs Officer, as security for his faithful behaviour as regards the customs regulations and officers, the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand only) in the case of Custom House and the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (rupees five thousand only) in the case of Land Customs Station, either in cash or in approved Government securities and also execute a bond in Form 'C'; (ii) furnish a solvent surety for a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 (rupees five thousand only) in Form `D'; (iii) deposit the fee as prescribed in rule 88. (iv) . ?????. (v) ?????? ????? These petitioners, however, while applying for renewal of their licences contended that the said rule 9(1), was not applicable to the existing licence holders. As their contention was not accepted, each of them filed separate writ petitions in the High Court challenging the legality of the impugned condition for renewal of their licences. The High Court being of the opinion that "in consequence of the period of the licences issued under the 1957 Rules having expired, the petitioners can only ask for fresh licences in terms of the 1965 Rules", dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal to this Court. Mr. Tofazzal Ali, the learned counsel has contended that rule 9 of the 1965 Rules would not be applicable to the existing licence holders. From a careful perusal of the provisions of Rules of 1957 and the Rules of 1965 we have not been able to discover therefrom anything which will support the right sought A to be asserted in these cases. The High Court has, therefore, rightly held that after expiry of the licences of the petitioners they could not claim any benefit under the repealed rules. The learned counsel has contended that in view of rule 24 of the 1965 Rules the existing licence holders would be deemed to be the licensees under the 1965 Rules and as such they would be entitled to the benefit of rules 1 and 14 of the said Rules. By rule 24 the licences issued under the 1957 Rules were kept alive for the un-expired period and in the absence of any clear words in the said rule they could not be treated as licences under the new Rules. In view of the definition of `Licence' in the 1965 B Rules the High Court has rightly pointed out that rules 13 and 14 were applicable only to such licences as were issued under the new Rules and not to licences which had been issued under the 1957 Rules. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not appear to be open to any exception and thus no case has been made out for our interference with the order of the High Court. These petitions are accordingly dismissed. Before concluding we would like to observe that while granting a stay in such cases the Court should be satisfied that action or in-action of the authority concerned was clearly in violation of something having the force of law. A person merely by filing a writ petition should not be allowed to gain an advantage to which he may not be entitled. On 20th December 1965, the High Court while admitting the writ petitions passed the following stay order: "Pending the disposal of this rule the respondents are restrained from giving effect to the impugned condition and from declining renewal of the licence to the petitioner on the ground of the non-fulfilment of the impugned condition by the petitioner." The said writ petitions were dismissed on 27th April 1965. Thus in effect the petitioners enjoyed a benefit for about four months to which they were not entitled. In a proceeding of this extraordinary nature where the High Court exercises power to stay operation of any impugned order or notification, it must exercise that power with great care so that a person may not manage to obtain a direct benefit from the case in contravention of law. A. H. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.