2001 PLP 1831 (YLR)

A. Declaring that retail price of Broiler Chicken and egg fixed by respondent is unjust, discriminatory,‑ arbitrary and without lawful authority; hence the same are liable to be set aside.‑ B. Declaring that without ensuring supply of Chicken and egg at fixed rate. The respondent or any other authority have no power or right to fix the retail prices of chicken and egg at the rate whereby reasonable margin of profit is not left. C. Restrain the respondent from enforcing the impugned Notification or conducting raids on the basis of impugned notifications. D. Quash the notifications issued by respondent on 20‑11‑2000 and 2‑1‑2001. E. Grant any other relief, which may deems fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case."

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioners are dealing with the business of Broiler and Layer chicken/hen and eggs in various parts of Quetta City and used to purchase the same from Sindh and Punjab Provinces. The rates are to be fixed weekly by Poultry Association registered under Companies Act, 1984 and recognized by the Government of Pakistan under Trade Registration Ordinance, 1961. After fixation of the rates the petitioners used to pay transportation, loading and unloading charges and then after calculation of the cost they sell the Poultry items on a justifiable price to the General Public. On 20‑11‑2000 and 2‑1‑2001 the respondent issued two separate Notifications wherein rates were fixed Rs.48 and Rs.52 per K.G., that of Broiler hen/chicken without consultation or mediation with the petitioners. Pre‑admission notice was given to the respondents, who filed his parawise comments by repudiating the contents of petition.

3. Mr. Mujeeb Ahmed Hashimi Advocate, learned counsel for petitioners argued that respondent has issued Notification without any lawful authority and jurisdiction are liable to be quashed. The respondent has no authority to fix the rate on his own motion without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Poultry items were not covered under the scheduled to the Balochistan Public Safety Regulation‑I of 1947, therefore, the respondent has no authority to fix the rate of the same through Notification on the strength of said Regulation.

4. Haji Ghulam Mustafa. Mengal Assistant Advocate‑General, appeared on behalf of respondent and argued that Notification No.3984, dated 20‑11‑2000 was issued only for the month of Holy Ramzan, in order to control the self made fluctuation of prices of Poultry items after having meeting of District Price Committee attended by petitioners and various other dealers of Quetta City, and accordingly rate of Broiler chicken/hen was fixed as Rs. 48 per K.G. The said Notification was replaced by Notification, dated 2‑1‑2001 where the price of Poultry chicken/hen was now fixed as Rs.52 per K.G. in the public interest after having meeting of District Price Control Committee.

5. I have heard the arguments so advanced by the parties and perused the comments so furnished by the respondent. It has come on record that price of daily use items are being increased on one pretext or the other badly affecting the general public. There must be check and balance in order to prevent unjustified enhancement in the puce of daily use items, accordingly District Price Control Committee was made effective to bring the price of daily use item on a reachable and acceptable level by benefiting the general public. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that under Balochistan Safety Regulation I of 1947 the District Magistrate has no authority to fix the rate of unscheduled items does not seems to be correct. In fact this point was agitated before this Court in C.P. No.67 of 1994, wherein it was held by the Division Bench as follows:‑‑‑ "We feel that to meet unjustified price‑hike drastically affecting general consumers, District' Magistrate apart from authority prescribed under Balochistan Safety Regulation, 1947, enjoys powers to check unreasonable or arbitrary increase of rates." It is also noted that the same points were also agitated in C.P. No.50 of 1989, decided by Division Bench of this Court., where relief was declined. Since legal and factual position. is being identical, ratio decidendi of previous petition is fully applicable to the instant case, whereby express opinion on the issue of law and fact has been delivered and I am, bound to follow the same. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the petition, as such the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief. Consequently the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the respondent is directed to hold the meeting of District Price Control Committee fortnightly after hearing the petitioners and obtaining the rates from Poultry Association of the other Provinces and then to fix the retail price of Poultry items. H.B.T./92/Q Petition dismissed/ Order accordingly.