2017 PLP 1052 (YLR)

AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.

Through instant petition, the petitioner has sought following relief:-- "a) To hold and declare that the letter No. DG-2 (493)/ 97-Excise/ 3954 dated 19 July, 2013 issued from the office DIRECTORATE GENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION SINDH KARACHI to the extent that the payment of amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as renewal fee of License in installment of Rs.1,00,000/- by the petitioner is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and the respondents are not entitled to collect/receive the said amount from the petitioner. b) To hold and declare that the treats issued by the respondent side on 9.12.2013 at about 2.00 p.m. to cancel the license and sealed the business place/liquor shop situated at Shahdadpur are illegal, unlawful arbitrary and violation of Principle of Natural Justice. c) To direct the respondents to return/refund the License fee amount of Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lacs and fifty thousand only) collected/received from the petitioner by the respondents. d) To restrain the respondents from collecting/receiving the license fee from the year 1999 to July, 2012 and the petitioner is liable to pay/deposit license fee from August, 2012 onward. e) To grant any other better further relief/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

2. Notices were issued, pursuant to which, comments have been filed on behalf of respondents along with annexures, wherein, it has been stated that through impugned letter dated 19.07.2012, the petitioner has been in fact accommodated and permitted to make payment of outstanding amount of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of license renewal fee for the financial year 1999-2000 to 2011-2012 in instalments of Rs.1,00,000/- per month at his own request. As per comments filed by respondents, instant petition has no merits hence liable to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been asked to make payment of renewal fee for the entire period, in which, his license remained cancelled, therefore, the petitioner cannot be asked to make payment for such period during which his license remained cancelled.

4. Learned AAG has seriously controverted such submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner through instant petition has not challenged the order of restoration of license made by the Competent Authority, on his own request in the year 2012, on the contrary, through instant petition, the petitioner has expressed his grievance against the letter dated 19.07.2012, whereby, the petitioner has been allowed to make payment of the outstanding license fee, in equal instalments of Rs.100,000/- per month. It has been further contended by the learned AAG that instead of obtaining a fresh license after its cancellation in the year 1999, the petitioner has himself opted to seek restoration of his original license by offering payment of Renewal Fee during the intervening period, for the reasons that the fee for fresh license was about Rs.5 Million, therefore, in order to get such benefit, the petitioner himself opted to seek restoration of the original cancelled license through payment in instalments.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and perused the record, which reflects that the petitioner has not infact challenged restoration order passed by the Competent Authority, which otherwise is an appealable order. On the contrary, the petitioner has impugned the letter dated 19.07.2012, whereby, respondents have allowed the petitioner to make payment of Rs.40,00,000/- as outstanding amount of license renewal fee for the financial years 1999-2000 to 2011-2012. We are of the opinion that no lawful cause of action has been pointed by the petitioner nor any order has been impugned through instant petition, which may require interference of this Court under its constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant petition, which being devoid of any merits, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine along with listed applications. MH/M-158/Sindh Petition dismissed.