P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1) an order made thereunder may provide :‑ "(a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the manufacture of any article of food from any foodstuffs ; (b) for controlling the prices at which any foodstuff may be bought and sold ; (c) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of any foodstuff ; (d) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any food stuff ordinarily kept for sale ; (e) for requiring any person holding stock of any foodstuff to sell the whole or a specified part of the stock to such persons or class of persons or in such circumstances as may be specified in the order ; (f) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transaction relating to any foodstuff which in the opinion of the authority making the order is, or is likely to be, detrimental to public interest ; (g) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters ; (h) for requiring persons engaged in the supply or distribu tion of, or trade or commerce in, any foodstuff, to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto as may be specified in the order ; and (i) for any incidental and supplementary matters including, in particular, the entering and search of premises, vehicles, vessels and aircraft, the seizure by a person authorised to make such search of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed, or any records connected therewith the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents, and the charging of fees therefor." On the 15th of October 1958. the Provincial Government issued the impugned Order by means of Notification No. 1188‑S. O. F. 11J58 which was published in the West Pakistan Gazette Extra ordinary dated the 15th of October 1958. The Order opened with the words that it was issued by the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Act. On the 1st of December 1959; the Additional Secretary to Government, West Pakistan, issued the memorandum.

4. Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 962 of 1960, attacked the memorandum on various grounds, but it does not appear necessary to consider them except the one which was to the effect that the memorandum not having been issued by a notified order was of no binding force. It would be noticed that the words "notified order" occur in section 3 of the Act reproduced in the last paragraph. By clause (c) of section 2‑of the Act, "notified order" is defined as an order notified in the Official Gazette. The memorandum was not notified in the Official Gazette and its copies appear to have been sent to persons who were affected by it or were to enforce it. A notification in the Official Gazette is one of the modes by which orders passed by Government are conveyed to the people but that is not the only form that such order can take, because the same information may be conveyed by a number of other means. The Act, however, requires that an order passed under its third section has to be passed by means of a notification in the Official Gazette. It was, therefore, not open to the Provincial Government or its officers to adopt any mode other than notification in the Official Gazette for conveying the direction contained in the memorandum. Consequently, I would hold that the memorandum has no validity.

5. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 968 of 1960, contended that the Older issued by the Governor of West Pakistan on the 15th of October 1958 was devoid of all legal sanctity for various reasons. One reason he mentioned was that as the Order did not specify the purposes for which it was being issued, it could not be considered valid. It is true that the Order does not state for what purpose the powers mentioned. therein were to be exercised, but it appears to me that the mere omission to mention its purpose is not fatal to the Order. I have already indicated that the Order opened with the words that it was issued under section 3 of the Act. That being so, it can be presumed that the Order was issued B for one of the purposes mentioned in section 3 of the Act. Another reason mentioned by Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad was that the Order had not been used for the purposes mentioned in section 3 of the Act and in this connection he pointed to the memorandum, the object of which appeared to be the sending of rice to Karachi so that it may be exported to foreign countries. Learned counsel contended that as the object for which the memorandum based on the Order was issued did not fall within the four corners of section 3 of the Act, the Order should be held to be ultra vires. I am of the view that the defects in the memorandum, if any, cannot invalidate the Order. The memo randum having been held to be invalid for the reason that it was not issued by means of a notified order, it is not necessary to consider its purposes in detail, and all that need be said is that if the intention was to export as much rice as possible from West Pakistan that purpose could not be considered to be one of those envisaged in section 3 of the Act. The export of rice to foreign countries play result in the earning of 'foreign exchange for Pakistan, but as the earning of foreign exchange, however useful for the country it might be, is not one of the objects mentioned in section 3 of the Act, the export of rice in the manner envisaged by the officer who issued the memorandum cannot be considered to be allowed by section 3 of the Act.

6. Having disposed of the main questions that arise in the two petitions, proceed to deal with some of the other questions agitated at the hearing. Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate, wanted that an order should issue from the Court to the Director of Food, West Pakistan, to grant permits to the petitioners represented by Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman for transport of rice from District Sheikhupura to other districts of the Province of West Pakistan. This prayer cannot be granted because, as admitted by the learned counsel, no application for grant of the permits had been made to the officer competent to grant permits and no occasion for issue of a writ to that officer has consequently arisen. If their applications for grant of permits are rejected. It will be open to the clients of Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman to seek appropriate redress from the Court but till such time as an application for grant of permits has proved unsuccessful, the prayer for issue of a writ directing the grant of permits is palpably premature.

7. The prayer in the petition of the clients of Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate, to the effect that the authorities be directed not to place an embargo on the transport and sale of rice of the petitioners in any part of the country, particularly East Pakistan, may now be taken up. The transport of rice from the West Pakistan to East Pakistan was prohibited by the Central Government by means of the Rice Movement Restriction Order, 1958 which was issued under the provisions of the Essential Supplies Act, 1957. Nowhere in the petition presented to this Court by the clients of Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad has the order issued by the Central Government been mentioned and it is consequently not open to the petitioners to seek in this case a writ against the Central Government. As regards the transport of rice from the district to another in West Pakistan, it is prohibited, as is its sale to any one, by the Order passed by the Governor of West Pakistan on the 15th of October 1958 unless a permit has been obtained. No attempts have been . made by the clients of Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad to obtain the requisite permits with the result that the prayer on their behalf for issue of writ directing the grant of permits is fully as premature as a similar prayer of the client of Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman, Advocate, has been held to be.

8. In view of what I have said above, I would issue a writ in each of the two petitions that the memorandum shall not be acted upon but would decline to grant any other relief to the petitioners. I would further direct that the petitioners in each case have their costs of the petition from the Provincial Government. S. A. MAHMOOD J ‑ I agree. A. H. Order accordingly.