P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

S. A. MAHMOOD, J.‑Ghulam Ahmad petitioner was granted permission to purchase beef from the market for sale in his shop in Royal Park in July 1948, and was granted a regular beef vending licence in the year 1952. Since 1950, beef licences were issued on yearly basis, valid from 1st January to 31st December of each year. The licence of the petitioner was renewed up to the 31st of December 1962, but on the 14th of October 1963, the Deputy Commissioner disallowed the renewal of the petitioner's licence on the ground that the petitioner had sublet his licence to another person in contravention of the rules and conditions of the licence. It may be mentioned that before making the order, the petitioner's explanation was called, and he was asked to show cause, but his explanation was found to be unsatisfactory. The Deputy Commissioner found that an unauthorised person, namely, Abdul Aziz, son of Ch. Abdul Karim, was actually running beef business on the petitioner s licence. He, therefore, ordered that the licence shall be deemed as cancelled from 31st December 1962. The petitioner filed a revision petition under the rules before the Commissioner, Lahore Division, which was dismissed on the 16th of November 1963. 2. By this writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Ghulam Ahmad petitioner seeks to have the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commis sioner set aside as having been passed without lawful authority and as being of no legal effect on the ground that the cancellation of the licence was made in contravention of sub‑rule (3) of rule 2 of the Slaughter of Kine Rules framed under section 43 of the Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872). This rule reads as under :‑ "The Deputy Commissioner may, at his discretion and without giving reasons, refuse to grant a licence for the sale of beef at any shop which has not been heretofore licensed within the meaning of this rule and may by order in writing, withdraw a licence of any (sic) shop which he considers superfluous or objectionable and which has not been continuously maintained for more than three years." 3. It is argued that as the cancellation of the licence is not for any of the reasons specified in the above rule, the Deputy Commissioner had no power to cancel the licence, and further that as it is the premises, which are licensed and not the person; therefore, even by the act of subletting of the licence, the petitioner's licence could not be cancelled. It is conceded that under condition No. 2 of the licence, the licence is not‑transferable but it is contended that it means merely that the premises cannot be changed and not that the licence cannot be sublet. Reliance is placed on Shaukat Ali v. Commissioner, Lahore Division and others (P L D 1963 Lah. 127) which holds that a licence for the slaughter of kine is not given to an individual, but only a shop is licensed by the Deputy Commissioner for the purposes of selling beef. It is, therefore, urged that once a shop or premises has been licensed anyone can sell beef in the shop or premises under the licence, and the petitioner's licence could not be cancelled for subletting the sale of beef in that shop. 4. On behalf of the respondent, it is urged that this is a case of refusal to renew a licence and not a cancellation of the licence, and it was open to the Deputy Commissioner to refuse to renew a licence. Reference is made to Letter No. 4262‑HG‑49/71811, dated the 13th of December 1949, from the Home Secretary to Government West Punjab to all Deputy Commissioners in West Punjab, conveying the conditions laid down by the Government for the issue of and to be attached to all beef licences. These conditions are of universal application, have the sanction of the Provincial Government, and supplement the rules, though not formally notified as rules, and are a necessary part of the licences issued ever since 1950. They have binding force in view of the principle laid down by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Pakistan v. Sheikh Abdul Hamid (P L D 1961 S C 105). 5. A reference to the conditions of the licence attaching to this licence, and others issued under the Slaughter of Kine Rules, shows that a licence is valid from 1st January to the 31st December, that the licence is non‑transferable, that the "butchers named in the licence" shall work together at a common shop and shall not slaughter more than one animal per day, that the "butchers concerned" shall not sell or keep for sale such beef as has not been slaughtered at the place specified for the purpose, that the "butchers concerned" shall not slaughter any cattle except of the specified categories mentioned therein and that the "butchers concerned" shall keep the premises in a state of thorough cleanli ness and shall protect the beef and other material from dust and flies, and comply with bye‑laws and instructions of the Local Bodies and orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner from time to time. The conditions also provide that a photograph or photo graphs of the licensee or licensees should be affixed on the licence ; and duly stamped with the office seal of the Deputy Commissioner. These are the essential conditions on which licences are issued to beef‑vendors. Under these conditions the obvious inference to be drawn is that the licence is granted not only in respect of the shop, but also to the particular person or persons, to whom the licence is issued, as on them certain responsibilities and obligations are placed for their due performance, and a failure in any respect renders the licence liable to revocation under Condition No. 7 and the proviso to rule 4. It is true that rule 2 by itself indicates that it is the shop which is licensed, but the terms and conditions above mentioned and in particular that the licence is non transferable, indicate that the particular person or persons are also licensed. Therefore, we are of the view that not only the shop but the person or persons concerned are also licensed. These terms and conditions were not placed before the learned Judges who decided the above cited case, and we have no doubt that if they had been apprised of these terms and conditions they may well have come to the conclusion, at which we have arrived. 6. In this case the licence was issued to Ghulam Ahmad petitioner. It was non‑transferable, and if be sublet the licence, there was a breach of the conditions of the licence, as was found. The subletting is not denied before us. Condition No. 7 of the licence expressly authorised the Deputy Commissioner to revoke or suspend or cancel a licence for breach of any of its conditions or for any other reason. The proviso to rule 4 further provides that the sanction of the Commissioner shall not be necessary for the withdrawal of a licence under the rules when the conditions of the licence are not observed. In view of the terms and Condition No. 7 of the licence and the proviso to rule 4 (which expressly confers power of revocation of a licence on the Deputy Commis sioner) it is idle to argue that because this power is not conferred by or specified in sub‑rule (3) of rule 2, the power cannot be exercised by him. As a general rule, the power to grant a licence includes the power to withdraw, revoke and cancel the licence. As the petitioner was selling beef under the conditions of his licence, which provided that the licence is non‑transferable, he cannot be permitted to go behind its conditions. The conditions laid down in the licence have to be read along with the rules, and even if it be necessary for power of revocation to be found in the rules the proviso to rule 4 conferred ample authority on the Deputy Commissioner. 7. This is besides a case, in which the petitioner's licence expired on the 31st of December 1962 and was not renewed in favour of the petitioner. This licence was valid for one year as per instructions of the Government cited above. Hence it is a case of non‑renewal of a licence, and sub‑rule (3) of rule (2) has no relevance to the case, but even if it is a case of withdrawal of a licence the proviso to rule 4 gave ample authority to the Deputy Commissioner to withdraw the licence ; and before taking action against him for a breach of its conditions a show‑cause notice and opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. 8. For the reasons given above, we dismiss this writ petition with costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.