1993 PLP 183 (MLD)

This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 6783/92, 6945/92, 6784/92, 6964/92, 7711/92, 6947/92, 6948/92, 6951/92, 6952/92, 6956/92, 6961/92, 6941/92, 6946/92, 7576/92 and 6944/92, in which common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. These petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, call in question the order of the District Magistrate, Lahore, dated 20th June, 1992 whereby he refused to renew the Money Lenders' Licence, granted to the petitioner and also directed registration of criminal case against him on account of having conducted the said business, without the requisite licence.

3. There is no dispute as regards the facts which are that the petitioners were granted moneylenders' licence under section 3 of the Punjab Money Lenders' Ordinance XXIX of 1960, on 20th October, 1966. This licence was renewed from time to time and remained valid up to 20th October 1987. Earlier on 27th July, 1987, the petitioner had applied to the District Collector, Lahore, for the renewal of the said licence. Strangely enough the said application remained pending for a period of about 5 years. It was ultimately rejected by the Collector on 20th June, 1992. who further directed that criminal case be registered against the petitioner under section 19 of the Money Lenders' Ordinance, as he had conducted the business, during the aforesaid period of time, without any valid licence.

4. This order, as already indicated, has been assailed in these petitions. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners; firstly, that the refusal to renew the licence is illegal and unlawful and secondly, that a direction to register a criminal case against the petitioners is without any lawful authority.

5. As regards the first contention, it is conceded by all the learned counsel that the provisions of the Punjab Money Lenders' Ordinance No. XXIX of 1960 have been declared as being repugnant to Holy Qur'an and Sunnah by the Federal Shariat Court in Dr. Mahmood‑ur‑Rehman Faisal and A others v. Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (PLD 1992 FSC 1). The effect of such declaration as envisaged by Article 203‑D (3)(b) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is that the aforesaid law cease to exist from the day when the order of the Federal Shariat Court was to operate, which in the present case was 30th June, 1992, as specified in para. 3 of the aforesaid judgment. That being so, the question of renewal of licence in favour of the petitioner does not arise.

6. The other contention of the learned counsel is, however, well founded. The respondent has proceeded to direct the registration of cases against the petitioner in terms of section 19. of the Ordinance, on the ground that he was transacting money‑lending business without being in possession of any effective licence under section 3 of the Ordinance. The assumption is that after the expiry of the licence granted to the petitioner on 30th October, 1987, no business could be carried on by the petitioner till the licence had been renewed. Unfortunately, while coming to this conclusion, the Collector completely omitted to take notice of provisions of section 3(5) of the Ordinance, which reads thus:‑ "(5) When an application for the renewal of a licence has been received from a money‑lender before the expiry of the period of his licence, the 8 existing licence shall be deemed to be effective until orders on the application have been made." 7.It is not disputed by the learned Additional Advocate‑General, that the petitioner had indeed applied for renewal before the expiry of the period of the licence and that application remained pending till 20th June, 1992. Consequently, by virtue of section 3(5), the petitioner was well entitled to carry on the business and there is no violation of section

19. Consequently, the direction to proceed under section 19 is clearly without any lawful authority. In view of what has been stated above, these petitions are allowed only to the extent that the direction for registration of a case, under section 19 of the Money‑Lenders' Ordinance, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No orders as to costs. A.A./A‑263/L Order accordingly.