1982 PLP 748 (SCMR)

SHAFI‑UR‑REHMAN, J.‑The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in obtaining an authorization for a depot for distribution of foodstuff seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby his constitutional petition was dismissed. The petitioner had been authorized as depot‑holder but that authorization was cancelled by the District Food Controller on the 9th of October, 1977. A constitutional petition (Writ Petition No. 3085 of 1977) was filed by him challenging the cancellation of his authorization. The constitutional petition then filed by the petitioner was not disposed of on merits but it was disposed of on a statement made by the petitioner. The direction being as follows:‑‑‑ "It is directed that the petitioner may approach the relevant authorities under the Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967. The said authority would consider the application on merits. The present status quo order will endure till the allotment of permanent depot. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly." This order is of 27th June, 1979. The petitioner then approached the relevant authorities for consideration of his case on merits and it appears that the matter was dealt with in accordance with Martial Law Order No. 30 which had been enforced on the 31st of January, 1978 ‑and which by para. 5 clause (d) required that‑‑‑ "The selection of candidate for grant of authorization shall be made by a draw of ballot under the supervision of the District Allotment It is contended that such a disposal was not the due compliance of the order of the High Court reproduced above and the entitlement of the petitioner should have been judged by reference to the date and the law when his depot authorization was cancelled that is 9‑10‑1977. The submissions of the petitioner did not prevail and his constitutional petition was dismissed. The challenge to the cancellation of the authorization of the petitioner was certainly to be determined by the law then in force when the cancellation order was passed. The grievance of the petitioner was not against that order but against the subsequent order when fresh authorization was issued in compliance with the Martial Law Order No.

30. It is therefore not proper to invoke the law in force on 9‑10-1977 for testing the legality of authorization given in 1980 The main grievance of the petitioner seems to be that in view of the High Court's order in earlier constitutional petition the case should have been disposed of on merits and not by drawing of lots. Any disposal of case on merits assumes its disposal in accordance with law and not in derogation of law. The order of the High Court was that the claim of the petitioner should be disposed of on merits. That appears to have been done because there; is no violation of the law in drawing of lots in respect of the grant of authorization for depots. The petition therefore has no merit and leave to appeal is refused. Petition dismissed.