P L D 1978 Lahore 1124 (PLP)

3. Another notification bearing the same number was issued on the 18th December, 1972, under section 4 of the above Act. A third notification bearing the same number was issued on the 18th January, 1973. This notification was issued under section 25-A of the above Act, declaring that pending the Constitution of the Market Committees in the said market area, the Extra-Assistant Director of Agriculture (Economics and Marketing), Campbellpur, shall exercise the functions of the Administrator of market committee under the said Act, rules and bye-laws framed thereunder.

4. The shopkeepers of Hassanabdal dealing in the commodities notified under section 4 filed a suit to challenge the notifications dated 18-12-1972 and 18-1-1973 and prayed for a declaration that the declaration of Hassanabdal as a notified area and the appointment of the Administrator is illegal, void, without lawful authority and mala fide. They applied for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from compelling them to act according to the notices given to them.

5. This petition was allowed and a temporary injunction was issued restraining the respondents from taking up any proceedings against the plaintiffs under the Act and the Rules -for non-compliance of the notices issued to them. 1t was held that section 25-A does not provide for appointment of an Administrator pending the constitution of the Market Committee and, therefore, his appointment was not in accordance with law.

6. The respondents filed an appeal against this order which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Campbellpur. He held that prima facie it appears from the provisions of section 25-A that the Provincial Government was competent to appoint an Arbitrator for the Market Committee. He decided the two other questions about irreparable loss and injury and the balance of convenience against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were represented by Abdur Razaq Shah and Muhammad Umar before the learned Courts below but now a revision petition has been filed by Allah Dad on behalf of 88 other shopkeepers.

7. The learned counsel contended that the Administrator could not be appointed in this case without the constitution of the market committee. He argued that section 25-A applied only to a case where a market committee has already been formed and the Government is of the view that a situation has arisen in which the purpose of the Act cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions thereof.

8. Mian Abdus Sattar Najjam, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiffs had prayed for an injunction to restrain the respondents from acting upon the notices issued to the shopkeepers to take licences for carrying on business of sale and purchase of notified agricultural produce in Hassanabdal. Section 4 of the Act provides that from the date of issue of the notification or in case a different date has been notified, from that date no person shall establish or continue or allow to be continued any place for the purchase and sale of agricultural produce so notified, or purchase or sell such agricultural produce except under a licence granted m accordance with the provisions of the Act, rules and byelaws made thereunder and the conditions governing the grant of licence from the date of issuance of a notification under section 4, and the question whether the Market Committee should be constituted first or an Administrator could be appointed is not relevant for considering the legality of the notices issued to the plaintiffs directing them to obtain the licences.

9. The learned counsel further argued that the Administrator is not required to be appointed only after the constitution of a committee. He urged that action under section 25-A can be taken even before the constitution of the market committee. He contended that section 25-A was added in order to remove certain anomalies in the Act. He urged that under section 4 only licensed dealers can carry on the notified business but section 8 provides that the market committee shall, inter alia, comprise of persons having licences, whether dealers, brokers, weighmen, measurers or surveyors - etc. Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act provides for the application for licence to be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner through the market committee. It is, therefore, contemplated by the Act that an application for licence can be given only when a Market Committee is constituted but such licensing becomes necessary from the date of notification under section

4. Similarly section 26 provides for penalties for contravention of the provisions of, inter alia, section 4, but under section 29, prosecution can be instituted by any person duly authorised by a resolution of the market committee. The anomaly is that although a person cannot carry on business without a licence, but neither the licence can be granted to him without the constitution of the market committee nor any action for contravention of the provisions of section 4 can be taken against him in the absence of the market committee. He, therefore, argued that in order to remove this anomaly, section 25-A which is as follows, was added: "If at any time Government are satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the purposes of this Act cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions thereof, Government may by notification- (a) declare that the functions of the market committee shall, to such extent as may be specified in the notification, be exercised by Government or such person or persons as they may direct ; (b) assume to themselves all-or any of the powers vested in or exerciseable by any market committee ; and such notification may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to Government to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the notification." It deals with emergency powers and applies even to cases where no market committee has been constituted.

10. It is not necessary to consider this latter point at this stage as it will amount to pre-judging the plaintiffs' suit.

11. One possible interpretation of section 25 is the same as taken by the learned District Judge. Even if it can be argued that this section is capable of being interpreted in another manner, the finding of the learned District Judge cannot be held to suffer from any jurisdictional defect as, described in section 115, C. P. C.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants did not urge before me that the notifications under section 3 or section 4 were in any manner invalid. He only challenged the appointment of the Administrator of the Market Committee under section 25-A of the Act. I agree with the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate- General that section 4 makes it obligatory. upon the persons dealing in the notified commodities to obtain licence. In view of this, no injunction can be granted in favour of the dealers permitting them to do any business in contravention of the provisions of section

4. In view of this, I agree with the learned District Judge that the plaintiffs will not suffer any irreparable loss and injury if an injunction is not issued.

13. In my view this petition is without merit and 1, therefore, dismiss it. There will be no order as to costs. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.