2004 PLP 724 (YLR)

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the reports relied by the petitioner are not of the Inspectors of respondent No.

1. The report dated 1-3-2000 is of Inspector of the Provincial Quality Control Board, Punjab. Similarly, letter dated 10-2-1999 is also of the Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board, Punjab, whereas the competent authority is respondent No.1. He further submits that petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation in his suit as is evident from the prayer clause although the petitioner has mentioned in the title of the suit that petitioner challenged the order of cancellation on the ground of mala fide whereas the petitioner did not allege any specific mala fide in the contents of the plain. He further submits that petitioner has concealed following material facts from this Court: -- (i) The licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Competent Authority vide order dated 26-8-1997. (ii) The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal under the provisions of the Drugs Act before the Drug Appellate Board, which was dismissed by the Board on 15-8-1998 but this fact was not pointed out by the petitioner in the contents of the revision petition. (iii) The petitioner also filed an application for renewal of drugs manufacturing licence before the Secretary, Central Licensing Board, which was rejected vide order dated 29-2-2000. He further submits that suit of the petitioner has become infructuous in view of the non-renewal of the licence of the petitioner by the Competent Authority vide order dated 29-2-2000 coupled with the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15-8-1998 as the order of cancellation is merged in the order of the Appellate Board. He summed up his arguments that the petitioner is not entitled to any ad interim relief in view of the subsequent events and also not entitled to the relief claimed by the petitioner through this revision petition, which tantamount to grant of total relief which is not permissible in the eyes of law.

4. The learned counsel of .the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that respondents did not renew the licence of the petitioner mala fide on a frivolous ground that premises of the petitioner is situated in a residential area vide order dated 29-2-2000 whereas the Shazeb Laboratory, and Fazal Din & Sons establishments are functioning in the residential areas but no action has been taken by the respondents against the aforesaid Firms, therefore, action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that the petitioner has filed appeal against the cancellation order before the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board did not decide the same within reasonable time, therefore, petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit. After filing the civil suit, the Appellate Board decided the appeal of the petitioner on 15-8-1998, therefore, contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that petitioner has not challenged the order of the Appellate Board has no force.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- (i) The petitioner challenged the vires of the aforesaid cancellation order by filing a suit for declaration before the Civil Court on 9-9-1997. (ii) The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Board under the provisions of the Drugs Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Board vide order dated 15-8-1998. (iii) The petitioner filed an application for renewal of licence which was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 29-2-2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the order dated 29-2-2000 and 15-8-1998 in his suit as is evident that the suit was filed before he said orders passed by the respondents. It is also admitted, fact that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the said orders through this revision petition. It is settled principle of law that order dated 26-8-1997 is merged in the order of the Appellate Board dated 15-8-1998. It is also admitted fact that the licence of the petitioner was not renewed by the respondents vide order dated 29-2-2000. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding, the revision petition as the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments: -- Nasir Jamal v. Zubaidah Begum 1990 CLC 1069. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC

220. It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below have concurrently exercised discretion against the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the subsequent events, I am not inclined to disturb the concurrent findings of the fact while exercising powers in revision jurisdiction under section

115. C.P.C. as the Courts below have rightly refused to grant ad interim relief to the petitioner and exercised discretion after applying independent mind, which is in accordance with the dictum laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- Ghulam Hussain's case 1989 ALD

326. Amir Gull's case PLD 1992 Peshawar

76. Shehzada Muhammad Umar Baig' s case PLD 1970 SC 139.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and judgment of the Courts below, therefore, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, keeping in view the controversy involved in the suit, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the aforesaid observations of this Court. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that observations in the interim orders are always tentative in nature. M.H./M-2324/L Revision dismissed.