' Civil Revisions Nos, 79, 103, 108, 116 and 153 to 157 of 1978 arising out of same order of learned District Judge, Multan disposing of sever appeals arising out of simlar suits are disposed of together by this s order.
2. Shortly put, numerous persons were sanctioned authorization Distribution of foodstuffs under the West Pakistan Wheat, Wheat At and Sugar Distribution Order of 1967 to be referred to as 'Order After promulgation of Martial Law, the authorizations in violation of law were subjected to scrutiny by a large number of authorisations were cancelled by Rationing Controller, Multan, vide his order dated 3-10-1966 (Annex `B') in terms of recommendations made by the Review Committee (District Allotment Board). Forty-nine persons affected adversely by the order of Rationing Controller filed suits before learned Additional Administrative Judge, Multan, Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, for declaratory decrees that the orders cancelling their authorisations were null and void, illegal, unwarranted in law and in excess of jurisdiction, etc. Hence not binding on the plaintiffs. By way of consequential relief, permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from implementation of the impugned orders was also prayed for. Applications for grant of temporary injunction were also made in each case which were disposed of by learned Additional Administrative Civil Judge on 7- 11-1977 by means of a consolidated order. Cases of Haji Bahoo, Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Farooq, Muhammad Ibrahim, Abdul Ghaffar Shah, Muhammad Akram, Manzoor Ahmed Butt, Tahir Hussain and Zafar Asif petitioners in Civil Revisions Nos, 79, 100, 108, 116 and 153 to 157 find mention at Serial Numbers 4, 36, 10, 7, 13, 19, 23,.32 and 39 respectively of the headnote of the judgment of learned Administrative Civil Judge.
' Perusal of order of learned trial Judge reveals that temporary injunction was claimed by the petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners were not allowed opportunity or hearing before District Allotment Board on whose recommendations Rationing Controller, Multan had passed the impugned order, the Rationing Controller was not competent to cancel the authorisations which were sanctioned by District Magistrate and that High Court had issued an interim stay in another case of simliar nature. All these contentions were turned down by the learned trial Judge who arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners had failed to make out a good prima fade case for issuance of temporary injunction, grant of injunction will adversely affect functions of Government department, the petitioners will not suffer irreparably if injunction is refused and balance of convenience also did not lie on their side. Resultantly, the applications were turned down.
' Appeals to challenge order of learned trial Court were taken before learned District Judge but without success. The appeals were dismissed by learned District Judge on the ground that order for sanction of authorisation in favour of the petitioners which were passed by executive authorities at the instance of office-bearers of a political party were void in law meaning thereby that the petitioners did not have a good prima facie case in their favour. Learned District Judge also agreed with the trial Court that the petitioners will not suffer irreparably if injunction is refused and balance of convenience was also not on their side as their claim rested on ex fade illegal and inequitable orders.
3. These revision petitions were admitted to regular hearing for consideration of the points mentioned in order dated 22-2-1978. Lengthy arguments were addressed on the side of the petitioners. Attack against concurring orders of two Courts below was mostly confined to the t that Rationing Controller was not competent to pass the impugned He had acted in a mechanical way which merely gave effect to emendation made by District Allotment Board and, finally that Magistrate alone was empowered to withdraw authorisations favour of the petitioners. I bad the occasion to deal with 'se points in Civil Revision No, 96 of 1978 which I bad dismissed. The procedure for sanction of authorisation has been laid down in para. 4 of the Order of 1967, which is to the effect that with a view to ensure proper distribution of food commodities, the District Magistrate may on the recommendation of District Allotment Board authorise any person or class of persons or establishment to distribute food commodities, etc. Under the next para (5), District Magistrate is empowered to pass order refusing to issue an authorisation, i,e, that District Magistrate may turn down the recommendation made by the District Allotment Board. Any person aggrieved by an order of District Magistrate may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner. Under para 6, several executive functionaries including the Director, District Magistrate, the Deputy Director or the District Food Controller are competent to pass orders suspending or cancelling authorisation. District Food Controller, as defined in para 2 of the Order, includes Rationing Controller.
4. Perusal of record reveals that Muhammad Shafiq, Muhammad Farooq, Muhammad Ibrahim, Tahir Hussain and Manzoor Ahmed BIM petitioners were sanctioned authorisations temporarily subject to the confirmation by the District Allotment Board. The relevant order reads as under : "The District Magistrate Multan vide his order dated has been pleased to appoint Mr.- son of resident of as temporary ration depot-holder subject to confirmation by District Allotment Board, Multan."
' However, the remaining petitioners, namely, Abdul Ghaffar, Muhammad Akram and Zafar Asif (Civil Revisions Nos, 153, 154 and 157 of 1978) had been sanctioned authorisations on regular basis and in accordance with Law Procedure prescribed in the Order as alluded to in the foregoing lines.
Their cases, therefore, stand on a different plane. The view of learned District Judge that initial sanction for authorisation in favour of the petitioners in Civil Revisions bearing Nos, 153/78 and 154/78 and 157/78 was void in law is seemingly not open to a serious challenge. It will be shown from the above resume of relevant provisions of Order of 1967 that District Magistrate was empowered to issue authorisation only on the recommendation made by District Allotment Board which was not done in these cases. I had observed in Civil Revision No, 96 of 1978 that apparently, the procedure could not be short-circuited under the garb of temporary allotment for which there was no provision in law. The claim of the petitioners for grant of injunction must, therefore, be turned down on the short ground that they did not have a fair question to raise at the trial as to existence of a legal right and to prevent breach thereof injunction should be granted in their favour.
In the circumstances, the question if Rationing Controller was not competent to cancel the authorisation in favour of the petitioners will not have much significance. The assertion that the order was passed behind the back of the petitioners is factually incorrect and stands belied by record. They all had been heard by District Allotment Board (Review Committee) and the impugned orders were passed by Rationing Controller after service of notices on the petitioners.
The view is sufficient to re the revisional applications of the petitioners who had been' temporary authorisation subject to confirmation by District All Board. The remaining requirements for exercise of injunction jurisdiction balance of convenience and irreparable loss are also not satisfied.
4-A. This brings us to the cases of Abdul Ghaffar Shah Akram and Zafar Asif petitioners in Civil Revision Nos, 157 of 1978. They had been allocated depots on regular basis but serve with notices for cancellation as if authorisations in their favour were also temporary subject to confirmation by District Allotment Board. The fact of the matter is that areas served by the depots allocated to Abdul Ghaffa Shah and Muhammad Akram petitioners in Civil Revisions No, 153 and 154, were extended by means of order dated 2-4-1977. They have. Therefore, a good prima facie case to challenge legality of order cancelling the authorisation as their claim does not rest on ex facie a void order. However, they both should also be declined temporary injunction for the reason tha Nazar Hussain Shah, a brother-in-law of Abdul Ghaffar Shah and Rang Ali father of Muhammad Akram had already been sanctioned authorisations. Under new instructions they both were ex facie ineligible for sanction of depot. The case ofZafar Asif is distinguishable from that of Abdul Ghaffar Shah and Muhammad Akram. Ijaz Ahmed son of Mubarik Hussain was included in the authorisation already sanctioned in the name of Zafar Asif. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was in any way ineligible for authorisation. He has a good prima facie case in his favour for the contention that the order cancelling authorisation in his name was seemingly illegal. The remaining requirements for grant of injunction also appear to be satisfied in his case. Order of learned District Judge in his ease affirming that of trial Judge should, therefore, be set aside. Application for temporary injunction in this case is accepted. Interim stay confirmed.
5. In the result, all revisional applications with the exception of that of Zafar Asif (Civil Revision No, 157 of 1978) are dismissed.
' Announced to Messrs Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Abdul Samad Hashmi and Sh. Almas Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Muhammad Iqbal Nasim, Inspector Rationing and Enforcement, Food Department, Multan.