' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- The brief facts out of which this Constitutional petition arises are that on 1-12-2004, petitioner submitted an application before respondent No,1 for obtaining personalized registration Mark for his Car bearing Registration No,ADB086, Chassis No,9047141 and Engine No,3226019. His application was marked to the subordinate officer (Assistant E.T.O.) with the remarks, to do the needful according to rules/instructions. The Assistant E.T.O. Instead of completing required legal formalities for issue of such personalized registration mark, demanded Rs,2,00,000 from 'the petitioner and also his consent for payment of Rs,2,00,000 as its charges, which the petitioner declined. On 2-12-2004, the petitioners served a legal notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 apprising them about the relevant Notification No,S.O.(T-II)/8-45/85/1066 dated 13-7-1994 and the illegal demand of Assistant E.T.O. In the sum of Rs,2,00,000 from the petitioner, with request for issuance of Personalized Registration Mark for his vehicle in accordance with the law, but with no result. Having failed in his efforts, the petitioner has preferred this Constitutional petition on 7-2-2005 with the following prayer:-- ' It is, therefore, respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No,1 to issue Personalized Number on payment of prescribed amount shown in Notification No,S.O.(T-II)/8-45/85/1066, dated 13-7-1994.
2. On notice of this petition, parawise comments have' been filed by respondent No,1 wherein neither the submission of application by the petitioner for grant of personalized registration mark has been denied nor the fact of demand of Rs,2,00,000, instead of legal charges of Rs,20,000, as provided under the relevant Notification, referred and relied by the petitioner. However, further case of the respondents is that a proposal for increase in the charges for grant of personalized registration Mark from Rs,20,000 to Rs,2,00,000 was submitted to the Government for which summary has also been moved to the Chief Minister, on 27-9-2004, therefore, the request of the petitioner was not entertained by the respondents.
3. During the pendency of this petition, as per directions issued by this Court on 8-4-2005, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has placed on record details of some personalized registration marks issued by the respondents, which show that even after institution of this petition and during its pendency such personalized registration Mark have been issued by the respondents to other persons, but, according to them, on payment of Rs,2,00,000 as its fee, which has been deposited in the Government account. Learned A.A.-G. Has, however, not been able to show any notification or provision of law justifying recovery of Rs,2,00,000 from the concerned parties, which is ten times to the fee notified in the relevant Notification dated 13th July, 1994. On the last date of hearing viz. 12-4-2005, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh has further placed on record copy of letter dated 24th March, 2005 and the Notification dated 22nd March, 2005 to show that the scheme of issuance of personalized registration Mark has been abolished by the Government of Sindh with immediate effect. He contended that in view of this development the petitioner is no more entitled for the relief claimed in this petition. Learned A.A.-G. However, did not dispute that the application for grant of personalized registration Mark was submitted by the petitioner on 1-12- 2004, much prior to the issuance of Notification dated 2nd March, 2005 and even after filing of such application, many other applicants were issued personalized registration Mark by Registration Authority. He also conceded that the Notification dated 22nd March, 2005 as no retrospective applicability.
4. In view of the above undisputed facts, we are of the view that by not granting personalized registration Mark to the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated 13th July, 1994 earlier, the respondent cannot take benefit of their own wrong by saying now that in view of the Notification dated 22nd March, 2005, the petitioner is not entitled for such personalized registration Mark for his vehicle. We are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner for grant of personalized registration Mark was already pending before the respondents and it could not be disposed of due to the slackness and illegal demand of Rs,2,00,000 by the respondents, therefore, it will not be hit by the subsequent Notification dated 22nd March, 2005. Moreso, as such Notification has no retrospective applicability.
5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and disposed of in the terms that subject to completion of other formalities, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall issue personalized registration Mark to the petitioner on the basis of his application dated 1-12-2004 by charging a sum of Rs,20,000 for that purpose, which is official fee of the Government.
6. Before parting with this order it may be observed that in case any scheme is introduced by the Sindh Government for cancellation of all the personalized registration Marks earlier issued to the vehicle owners, the petitioner will also be subject to such scheme without any exception.