P L D 1987 Lahore 260 (PLP)

The facts giving rise to this constitutional petition are that Abdur Rehman petitioner runs a soap factory known as New Rehmania Factory in Sargodha. He obtained licence for the years, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Later Municipal Corporation, Sargodha (respondent No. 1) refused to issue licence to the petitioner although in the same vicinity other factories of like nature were functioning. Consequently, a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation alongwith an application for the grant of stay order was filed which was dismissed. The petitioner filed an appeal which was withdrawn after issuance of licence to the petitioner. However, on 16‑7‑1986, Municipal Corporation, Sargodha cancelled the licence of the petitioner without any notice to him and vide order dated 27‑7‑1986 passed an order for sealing the factory. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Sargodha Division. Vide his order dated 10‑1‑1987, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. In consequence, the factory of the petitioner was sealed.

2. It is stated that the entire proceedings against the petitioner are based on malice. About eight industrial concerns are running in the close vicinity of the petitioner's factory, of which three are soap factories but only the petitioner has been victimised and his factory has been declared to be injurious to the public health. The report of the Corporation Magistrate which was favourable to the petitioner was not taken into consideration. A prayer has been made to declare the action of the Municipal Corporation, Sargodha to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

3. Report and parawise comments were called from Municipal Corporation, Sargodha through its Mayor. According to him the peti tioner had been running a soap factory in the name of Ghaffar Soap Factory. The licence issued in favour of the petitioner was suspended by the Commissioner on the appeal filed by one Abdur Rashid. The matter was remanded to the Corporation for reconsideration after conducting a survey of the locality. A Sub‑Committee consisting of Councillors was constituted to make investigation about the existence of other factories in the said area. The Sub‑Committee reported that there was no other factory except that of Abdur Rebman & Co. and that the existence of such factory was against public interest. Consequently, on 10‑11‑1985 the Corporation declined to grant licence to the petitioner. The District Administration, on the complaint of the residents of the locality, sealed the factory being a public nuisance. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 5‑8‑1985. The peti tioner, after having lost his case in the name of Ghaffar Soap Factory, changed the name of factory to New Rehmania Soap Factory. A fresh complaint was filed by the residents of the locality. By misrepresenting the facts he manoeuvred to obtain a licence which was later on cancelled by the Municipal Corporation and his factory was sealed. The petitioner applied to the Commissioner for desealing the factory so that he might shift the factory to another place. It was supported by an affidavit. The applica tion was granted and vide order dated 8‑9‑1986 he was allowed to shift the factory within a period of one month and the factory was desealed. The petitioner, instead of shifting the factory, filed an appeal before the Commissioner which was dismissed. The report of the Magistrate is not based 04 true facts, it is stated.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 73(ii)l of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 provides that "no person shall carry on any dangerous or offensive trade except under and in con formity with the conditions of a licence granted by the urban local council and no premises shall be used or suffered to be used for any dangerous or offensive trade." Soap is mentioned as one of the dangerous and offensive articles and trades in the first schedule, item No. 9, storing, processing, preparation or manufacturing of which is prohibited by the ibid Ordinance. No person can carry on any dangerous or offensive trade or store any offensive or dangerous articles without the sanction required under the Ordinance. The petitioner was, thus required to obtain sanction of the Municipal Corporation for running the soap factory which had been declined to him on the representation of the residents of the locality. A Sub‑Committee of the Councillors was set up to enquire into the petitioner's allegation that in the same vicinity some soap factories were working. After inquiry they reported that no such factory was functioning in that area. The petitioner has based his case mainly on the report of the Corporation Magistrate which according to the Chairman is not based on true facts. The grant or refusal of licence falls within the discretion of the Corporation and if they think that running of a soap factory in a particular area would be injurious to the health of the inhabitants of that locality no exception can be taken to their decision. Under the law, the Municipal Corporation is competent to grant or refuse licence in respect of offensive or dangerous trade and they cannot be compelled to issue licence for running such a trade to a particular person. In the given circumstances, the Corporation has for good reasons declined the issuance of licence to the petitioner. Finding absolutely no illegality or any jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the Municipal Corporation, the petition is dismissed. M. B. A./A‑52/L, Petition dismissed.