1984 PLP 837 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, J.--By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above Writ Petition and Misc. Appeal. It may be observed that a Misc. Appeal of the nature in issue is heard by S.B. but the learned Chief Justice has ordered that the above should be heard alongwith the above petition. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above petition and the Misc. Appeal are that respondent No.2, in the petition by a notice dated 12-11-1973 asked the petitioners to appear before it on 21-11-1973 at 11 a.m. Under the caption "subject" the following description was given:-- "PAKISTAN PETROLEUM IMPORTERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATION REGARDING LUBE TRADE". This was followed by another notice, dated 17th December, 1973, whereby the petitioners were directed to appear on 24th December, 1973 at 11 a.m. This, notice wets issued under the caption "IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINT FILED BY MR.S.M. UZAIR ASSOCIATE MESSRS CAIAEX. OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI". The third notice, dated 24th December, 1973, was followed, whereby the petitioners were directed to appear on 29th December, 1973, in which it was also stated that respondent No.2 has been referred an enquiry by the Ministry of Fuel, Power and Natural Resources. The fourth notice is, dated 17th January, 1974, whereby the petitioners were directed under section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 (hereinafter shall be referred to the Ordinance) to furnish the information mentioned therein. This notice was replied to by the petitioners through their letter, dated 14th February, 1974 wherein -it was stated that the information asked for was already furnished to the Ministry Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad under petitioners' letter, dated 8th August 1973'. It is the case of the petitioners that after that they received a letter dated 6th March, 1974 from respondent No.1 directing them to pay a sum of Rs.9,000 to respondent No.3, S.M. Uzair, which was followed by letter dated 25th March, 1974 and 27th March, 1974. It was also the case of the petitioners since they did not yield to the above illegal demand, they were served with the impugned show-cause notice, dated 20th March, 1974 under section 19 of the Ordinance by respondent No.2 stating therein, that the petitioners had failed to furnish the required information within the time' specified as to why action should not be taken against them under the above section. It seems that in reply to the above show-cruse notice the petitioners sent their letter, dated 25th March, 1974, pointing out therein that by their previous letter they had already informed respondent No. 2 that the requisite information was already with the Ministry of Fuel, Power or Natural, Resources and that they had no intention to withhold the said information. They also furnished the required information through the above letter. It also seems that the petitioner's above reply was not found sufficient by respondent No.2 and, therefore, it proceeded with the matter and passed the impugned order, dated 15th May, 1974, which is the subject -matter of the above Misc. Appeal. It may be observed that the above petition was filed by the petitioners on 15-10-1974 in order to challenge the right of respondent. No.2' to ask for information or to hold the aforesaid enquiry referred to it by the Ministry, Fuel, Power and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, In the above petition a stay application was also filed, which was dismissed though originally an ad interim injunction was granted. The petitioners against the above dismissal order filed a petition for leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed and the said dismissal order is reported in 1976 S C M R 99.

2. Since the petitioners had already furnished the requisite information, in our view it is not necessary to go into the questions raised in the Writ Petition particularly because of the fact that a final order has been passed which is the subject-matter of the Misc. Appeal as observed hereinabove. However, the question which requires consideration, is as to whether respondent No.2 was justified in imposing a penalty of Its.10,000 for the alleged failure on the part of the petitioners to furnish the requisite information within the specified period. In our view, the instant case was not a fit case, in which respondent No.2 should have imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 as from the documents 'referred to hereinabove, it is evident that at no point of time the petitioners refused to furnish the information asked for under section 21 of the Ordinance, tire aforesaid petitioners' reply, dated 14th February, 1974 contained no such refusal. What was stated was that the requisite information was already furnished; to the Ministry concerned. In any case even the requisite information was furnished by the petitioners through their above letter, dated 25th March, 1974. We, therefore, allow the above appeal with no order as to costs. The petition, however, stands dismissed with no order as to costs, as having become infructuous. M.A.K. Order accordingly.