2002 PLP 1464 (SCMR)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, through Secretary Food, Lahore and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs UNITED SUGAR MILLS, LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1464 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, through Secretary Food, Lahore and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs UNITED SUGAR MILLS, LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1464 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1464 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Tanvir Ahmed Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1464 (SCMR) (GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT, through Secretary Food, Lahore and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Messrs UNITED SUGAR MILLS, LTD. ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Majid Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 2002.
- Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Advocate‑General Punjab (On Court's call).
- 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that Provincial Government had directed publication of the notification dated 31st March, 1983 in extraordinary Gazette but perhaps inadvertently it has not been published in the extraordinary Gazette. Therefore, according to him non -publication or delay in the publication would not be fatal and only for such reason the notification may have not been declared ineffective and invalid.
- 5. Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, learned Advocate‑General, Punjab, who was present in Court on some other case, on perusal of record stated that Printing Press of Pakistan must have published it in the extraordinary Gazette but if there is an omission, that can be rectified because fact remains that notification, dated 31st March, 1983 was in the knowledge of the respondent and all other concerned, dealing in the business of sugar manufacturing. According to him the object of publishing of a notification in the official Gazette is only to make it public for everyone to have knowledge about its existence.
- 6. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have examined relevant provisions of laws as well as the notification and the impugned judgment, carefully. In our opinion contention raised on behalf of petitioners needs examination because this Court in the judgment reported in Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCMR 785) and Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others (1991 SCMR 2180) has held that the delay in publication would not make it as invalid.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 6‑12‑2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.3100 of 1984). West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act (XX of 1958)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(3) & 3‑‑‑Punjab Government Notification dated 31‑3‑1983‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑‑Non‑publication in the official Gazette of notification directing Sugar Mills to deposit certain amounts, calculated in accordance with the terms of said notification into an Export Fund created by the Federal Government‑‑‑Sugar Mill challenged the demand created by the notification through Constitutional petition before the High Court with the averments that demand made by the Provincial Government was illegal and without jurisdiction because the same was based on a notification which was not duly notified under S.2(3) of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 and said notification having not been duly notified in the official Gazette same could not be treated as a notified order‑‑ High Court allowed the Constitutional petition by means of impugned judgment‑‑‑Contention of the Provincial Government was that Government had directed the publication of the notification in extraordinary Gazette but inadvertently the same had not been published; that non‑publication or delay in the publication would not be fatal and only for such reason the notification might not have been declared ineffective and invalid and that the object of publishing of a notification in the official Gazette was only to make the same public and facts remained that the respondent had the knowledge of the notification‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court inter alia to examine the contentions of the Provincial Government. Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandliawala 1983 SCMR 785 and Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others 1991 SCMR 2180 ref. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Advocate‑General Punjab (On Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 6th December, 2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No.3100 of 1984 filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent is a company running sugar mills. It was required by the Provincial Government vide notification, dated 31st March, 1983 to deposit certain amounts, calculated in accordance with the terms of the said notification into an Export Fund created by the Federal Government. Respondent‑Company challenged the said demand and notification by tiling writ petition before Lahore High Court, Lahore with the averments that demand made by the Provincial Government is illegal and without jurisdiction because it is based on a notification not duly notified under the provisions of section 2, subsection (3) of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1958) as according to said provision every notification issued under section 3 of the Act. 1958 has to be duly notified in the official Gazette. Since the said notification has not been notified in the official Gazette, therefore, it cannot be treated as a notified order.
3. Learned Single Judge, in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore after hearing both the sides allowed the writ petition by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that Provincial Government had directed publication of the notification dated 31st March, 1983 in extraordinary Gazette but perhaps inadvertently it has not been published in the extraordinary Gazette. Therefore, according to him non -publication or delay in the publication would not be fatal and only for such reason the notification may have not been declared ineffective and invalid.
5. Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, learned Advocate‑General, Punjab, who was present in Court on some other case, on perusal of record stated that Printing Press of Pakistan must have published it in the extraordinary Gazette but if there is an omission, that can be rectified because fact remains that notification, dated 31st March, 1983 was in the knowledge of the respondent and all other concerned, dealing in the business of sugar manufacturing. According to him the object of publishing of a notification in the official Gazette is only to make it public for everyone to have knowledge about its existence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have examined relevant provisions of laws as well as the notification and the impugned judgment, carefully. In our opinion contention raised on behalf of petitioners needs examination because this Court in the judgment reported in Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCMR 785) and Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others (1991 SCMR 2180) has held that the delay in publication would not make it as invalid. Therefore, in view of above discussion, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine the above contention. C. M. A. No. 644‑L of 2002.‑‑It is a fact that since 31st March 1983, the notification under examination was being fully implemented accordingly. As such pending decision of the petition, the operation of the impugned judgment is suspended. M. B. A./P‑129/S Leave granted.