2012 PLP 1089 (MLD)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

This writ petition is filed against the impugned order dated 20-8-2010 by respondent No.1 Home Secretary, declining firstly, the revival of dealership license issued in favour of Ijaz Farid and Company, Gujranwala thereby rejecting the consequent transfer of the dealership license to the name of the petitioners.

2. Respondent No.1 heard the petitioners in compliance of the order dated 20-10-2009 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16056 of 2009 whereby the petitioners had been granted an opportunity to produce law and precedents before respondent No.1 in support of the above claimed relief. It is noted in the impugned order that neither law nor cogent material to substantiate the claim of transfer of dealership license was placed before respondent No.1.

3. Learned Addl. A.G. has opposed the grant of any relief to the petitioners on the ground that the original licensee respondent No.5 has not challenged the cancellation of his dealership license on 13-8-2009. Secondly, he has contended that infact there is no partnership between the petitioners and the cancelled licensee after 2005 when the petitioners have bought out the bulk of the latter's share-holding in the licensed business. In that background, he submits that neither the partnership was got approved from the respondent authorities when it was in existence nor was the ownership of the petitioners in the operation of the dealership, got approved from the said authorities after the petitioners became the principal owner of the licensed business. The matter of dealership licenses is strictly regulated by the provisions of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. Unlicensed sale and repair of arms and ammunition is strictly prohibited under section 4 of the said Ordinance whereas licenses are granted in exercise of power conferred upon the government by section 11 of the Ordinance. The unapproved and unlicensed activities of the petitioners for several years constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Ordinance. Reliance of the petitioners on government decisions dated 21-3-1995 and 30-6-2005 as precedents allowing transfer of licenses are mere executive orders having no backing of law. Neither the Act nor any statutory instrument framed thereunder contemplates the entry of new partners with an existing licensee for taking, over the operations of his licensed business.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the operators in the field of arms dealership license are working in partnership with the persons who may earlier have secured such privilege through their influence or relations. Therefore the petitioners should not be condemned for their initiative.

5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In the case of the petitioners the fact that original licensee has not raised any grievance is material. The petitioners cannot have locus standi in this matter unless they are duly reflected on record as an affected party. Also, the relief that the petitioners are seeking in the petition does not find backing from any provision of law. Thirdly, it is of fundamental importance that business activities that affect public security and peace be carried out under close vigil of the licensing authorities. Accordingly, every operator in this field must satisfy the lawfully determined criteria of assessment and evaluation for a licensee before he may commence or be allowed to continue such business.

6. In the present case respondent No.1 has found no grounds to validate or condone the activities of the petitioners during the last several years under claimed but unauthorized partnership agreement with the licensee so as to revive such license and thereafter to transfer the same to the petitioners. Accordingly, there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 20-8-2010. Before parting, it is observed that the respondents in exercise of their statutory functions under the Ordinance must apply uniform standards to all operators in the arms dealership business. Therefore all unauthorized partnerships or agents in the said business must be given equal treatment by the respondents throughout the province.

7. Petition disposed of. M.W.A./M-938/L Order accordingly.