P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

S. A. MAHMOOD, J.‑A licence for the vending of beef in a shop was issued in the name of Tufail Beg and Qudratullah, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, which was valid from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 1963, and was renewed up to the 31st of December 1964. The name of Muhammad Kabir, who had applied along with the petitioners for the 'grant of a licence, was not included in this licence. The petitioners agreed to join Muhammad Kabir as a partner in the business and made an application dated the 14th of. November 1963 that his name be included in the licence. They changed their mind subsequently and on the 26th of March 1964, made another application request ing that the name of Rehmat Beg be included instead of that of Muhammad Kabir. The Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, acting on the first application of the petitioners, included the name of Muhammad Kabir, respondent No. 3, in the beef licence on the 12th of December 1964. Therefore, the petitioners and Rehmat Beg filed separate revision petitions before the Commissioner against the non-inclusion of Rehmat Beg's name in the licence. These two revision petitions were taken up by the Commissioner, who by his order dated the 5th of April 1965, cancelled the licence from the name of the petitioner and Muhammad Kabir, as he found Muhammad Kabir to be unsuitable from ,police reports showing that he was misbehaving towards young girls who came to the shop to buy beef and as his father had a licence for another beef shop and it was not necessary that every adult member of the family should be given a separate licence and a beef shop. With respect to the petitioners he found that they were playing into the hands of Naqvi and the grant of licence to them had led to party faction and if the licence was allowed to continue in their name, it would increase party faction in the village leading to unpleasant results. He, therefore, directed that the licence should be allotted to someone else. Tufail Beg and Qudratullah petitioners moved this Court under Article 98 of the Constitution for setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner as without lawful authority and as being of no legal effect. 2. It was contended before this Court at the time of admission that as it is the shop and not the persons who are licensed, there was no power in the Commissioner to remove the names of the petitioners from the, licence. This petition was admitted and operation of the Commissioner's order was stayed. Muhammad Kabir filed Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1965, which was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of this Court on the 8th of July 1965, and the Commissioner's order directing the removal of his name, has become final, as no attempt has been made by him to have the dismissal of his petition set aside. 3. We are not inclined to accept the contention that it is a shop and not the persons who are licensed. We have given detailed reasons for coming to the conclusion in Ghulam Ahmad v. Khan Hidayatullah Khan (P L D 1966 Lah. 557), that the persons are also licensed. Therefore, there is no force in the contention that the name of Muhammad Kabir could not be included in the licence by the Deputy Commissioner. It should be remembered that the petitioners themselves in their first application wanted his name to be included in the licence. Of course, the petitioner later wanted the name of Rehmat Beg instead of Muhammad Kabir to be included in the licence, but the choice was not entirely theirs, as it was open to the Deputy Commissioner to include the name of Rehmat Beg or not on a consideration whether he was a suitable person to be include' in the licence or not. We find no illegality, therefore, in the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 4. The order of the Commissioner in revision is challenged on the ground that no revision lay to him. A revision is provided in rule 5 of the Slaughter of Kine Rules, which provides as under: "All orders of a Deputy Commissioner (1) licensing or refusing to license any place for the slaughter of kine ; (2) applying the provisions of rule (1), to any village or kasba or rejecting a petition for their application ; (3) licensing any shop for the sale of beef or refusing to licence the same or withdrawing the licence; (4) prohibiting the' slaughter of kine or sale of beef in any place where it has heretofore been permitted and appointing some other place instead ; (5) temporary suspending any licence held under these rules; shall be open to revision by the Commissioner of the Division of his own motion or on application by any person interested and may be modified or cancelled by him, and the Local Government may require the Commissioner to modify or cancel all such orders or may itself modify or cancel all such orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner or passed by the Commissioner in revision. Effect shall be given to a revised order under this rule as if it had been an original order." The inclusion of the name of Muhammad Kabir is not a matter covered by any of the clauses of rule 5, and, therefore, a revision did not lie under rule 5 from the order of the Deputy Com missioner to the Commissioner. His order is, therefore, nor valid. This rule requires to be amended. But so long as ii stands, an order of the kind made by the Deputy Commissioner was not open to revision by the Commissioner. Besides, it does not appear that the Commissioner issued any notice to the petitioners or intimated to them that he intended to consider the cancellation of the licence issued to them and, therefore, also his order is not valid. For these reasons, we would set aside the order of the Commissioner as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. 5. In the result, we accept this writ petition and set aside the order of the Commissioner so far as the two petitioners before us are concerned, but make no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.