1999 PLP 278 (YLR)

Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the licence was granted by the competent Authority after observing all the necessary formalities. Objections were invited from the public and notices were pasted at the conspicuous places such as office of the S.D.M., Police Station and the Municipal Committee Mirpur Mathelo but no citizen filed objections. He submitted that there will be fair competition in the business after opening of new shop. He contends that petitioners want monopoly and this petition has been filed with ulterior motive so as to harass the respondent No.5. He further stated that shop of respondent No.5 stands desealed and was allowed to function normally by Director‑General Excise and Taxation Sindh Karachi vide order, dated 13‑11‑1996 which was filed by Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh learned counsel for respondent No.5 through statement, dated 16‑11‑1998. It is also pleaded that shop of respondent No.5 is functioning since 1996 without any hindrance, obstacle or complaint whatsoever. Lastly it was contended that there is no violation of Articles 18 and 37(h). Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafri learned A.A.‑G. also submitted that petition is filed by the petitioners with mala fide intention so that they may keep monopoly over the sale of liquor and wine whereas if both the shops are allowed to run, there will be healthy competition which will be in the interest of the local public. According to learned A.A.‑G. the respondents have complied with the legal formalities and there is no violation of paragraph 100 of Excise Manual. We have gone through the material placed with the case. For the just decision of this petition it will be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of paragraph 100 of the Sindh Excise Manual which reads as under:‑‑ "The previous sanction of the Government must be obtained for the establishment of new shops for the sale of country liquor (including toddy) foreign liquor and intoxicating drugs. But before applying for the Government sanction each Collector has to follow the procedure ordered by Government Resolution, Revenue Department, No.8281, dated the 30th October, 1889, and the Government Circular, Revenue Department No.835‑B, dated the 19th July, 1941, viz‑‑‑ (1) To carefully consider the application in all its bearings such as the proximity of other shops at the locality, the distance of the village from the neighbouring foreign territory where the intoxicant is easily procurable and the chances whether, if a shop were not opened, the people would resort to illicit distillation or smuggling." Since learned counsel for petitioners in his arguments had referred to Articles 18 and 37(h) of the Constitution, the same are also reproduced hereunder: "

18. Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business: Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent‑‑‑ (a) the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system; or (b) the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the interest of free competition therein; or (c) the carrying on, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons." Perusal of the above provisions, does not show any violation on the part of official respondents. The petitioners cannot be granted the relief sought in this petition. Consequently we are of the firm opinion that this petition is devoid of merits and dismiss the same in limine alongwith the listed application. On 6‑4‑1999 this petition was dismissed by short order. Above are the reasons for the same. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑83/K Petition dismissed.