The brief facts out of which the present Constitutional petition arises are that the petitioner submitted an application to the Pakistan State Oil Company with the request that petitioner be allowed to install a Petrol Pump as a dealer of the Pakistan State Oil Company and also authorize the petitioner to deal with the legal proceedings regarding obtaining No Objection Certificate vide authority letter dated 18.9.2003, which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure-A. The petitioner submitted the application before Respondent No, 3 for issuance of no objection Certificate on 21.5.2003 to refer the matter to the authorities of the District Administration mentioning in para 4 of the Constitutional petition. The authorities of the District administration mentioned in para 4 have submitted the positive report in favour of the petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sultan filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Pakistan State Oil Company in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala by impleading Respondent No, 3 in the present writ petition and other authorities of the district administration mentioned in Para 4. The application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide Notification dated 3.6.2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the impugned notification is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Petroleum Rules 1985, which are the federal Act and Rules and exclusively within the domain and extent of the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Legislature has no authority in any manner to change the specification mentioned in the schedule in the aforesaid Petroleum Rules, 1985. He further submits that the impugned notification is also hit by Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution. He further submits that respondents have issued a notification on 20.1.2003 wherein reduced the minimum area for CNG Stations to one kanal and frontage to 60 feet. Therefore, both the impugned notifications are hit by Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that respondents have no lawful authority to cancel the earlier notification through the impugned notification dated 3.6.2002. He further urges that the petitioner had filed application before the impugned notification, therefore, case of the petitioner be decided under the old Notification issued by the competent authority.
3. The learned law officer submits that action of the respondents is in accordance with the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the Rules framed there under. He further submits that the grant of No Objection Certificate for installation of Petrol Pumps is regulated by the Federal Government through the explosive Department under the Ministry of. Industries & Production under the Petroleum Act, 1934. The Petroleum Rules, 1937 were framed and under the provisions of said Rules, No Objection Certificate in respect of the premises for establishment of Petrol Pumps is issued by the District Authority i,e, the District Nazim and the City Nazim. He further submit that under the provisions of Chapter VI, Rule 115 permission for a distribution outlet for POL-Products is granted by the authority appointed by the Federal Government i,e, Ministry of Industries & Production, Government of Pakistan set-forth in Scheudle-I under Rule 115 of the Petroleum Rules, 1937. He further submits that the impugned notification was also issued after securing necessary approval of the Governor of the Punjab in terms of the aforesaid rules. The case of the petitioner was decided by the competent authority on the basis of the existing policy of issuance of NOC for establishment of Petrol Pumps empower only the District Petrol Pump Committee to examine all cases/application on merits. The Department of Industries neither directly or indirectly deal in such cases. Under Rule 115(3) of the Petroleum Rules, 1937 NOC in respect of location of the premises for establishment of Petrol Pumps is to be issued by the District Authority i,e, District Nazim and the City Nazim. He further submits that letter dated 11.4.2002 to this effect was issued to all the District Coordination Officers in the Punjab and it was intimated that policy procedure for grant of No Objection Certificate for establishment of Petrol Pump is under review and till the final recommendations are firmed up, the issuance of NOC for establishment of Petrol Pumps should be put on hold, therefore, petitioner's plea to consider his request under old dispensation is not in accordance with law. He further urges that the request of the petitioner was examined by the District Petrol Pumps Committee under the Chairmanship of the District Authority and not by the District Coordination Officer. Respondent No, 1 has filed report and parawise comments through Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan. During the pendency of the writ petition, Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan, has been retired from the post of Deputy Attorney- General. Mian Hameed-ud-Din Kasuri, Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan is present in Court, he submits that it is a job of the District Authority in view of Rule 115(3) of the Petroleum Rules, 1937.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that impugned notification dated 30.6.2002 is in conflict of Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution, has no force as the Federal statute prescribed District authority to issue NOC by the District Authority in view of Rule 115(3) of the Petroleum Rules, 1937. The competent authority has formulated the policy during the pendency of the application of the petitioner, which is a procedural in character, therefore, same has retrospective effect as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Hassan and others vs. Fancy Foundation (PLD 1975 S.C. 1).
M/s. Airport Support Service vs. The Airport Manager, Karachi, Airport (1998 S.C.M.R. 2268).
Zain Yar Khan vs. The Chief Engineer CRBL WAPDA etc. (1998 S.C.M.R. 2419). The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the Provincial Government has no lawful authority to change the specification has also no force as in view of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 wherein the law and order situation in the Province is the primarily duty of the Province and not the Federation as the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Karachi High Court in Khalid Malik and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1991 Karachi 1). The relevant observation is as under:-- "No doubt the problem of law and order in Sindh had assumed alarming, proportions, and to maintain law and order is one of the primary functions of the Government but admittedly the law and order is a provincial subject."
It is also settled principle of law that our Constitution is based on trichotomy and this Court has only jurisdiction to' interpret the taw and has no jurisdiction to take the role of the policy maker. The petitioner has basically challenged the vires of the policy of , the respondents, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments :-- Government of Pakistan vs. Zamir Ahmad Khan. (PLD 1975 S.C. 667).
Zamir Ahmad Khan vs, Government of Pakistan. (1978 SCM R 327).
Miss Sarah Malik vs. Federation of Pakistan (2001 M LD 1026).
Muhammad Saleem vs. Federal Public Service Commission and 2 others.
(200.3 MLD 1133).
Airleague of PIA employees vs. Federation of Pakistan (2003 PLD (C.S.) 145).
State of U.P. and other vs. D.K. Sing and 'others.
(AIR 1987 S.C. 190).
Unreported judgment passed in I.C.A. 136/2004 decided on 15.04.2004.
In view of what has been discussed above, this Constitutional petition has no merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.