' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- These civil appeals with leave of this Court are directed against judgment, dated 6-12-2000 in Writ Petitions Nos.3100 of 1984 and 340 of 1985 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the said writ petitions were allowed, thereby respondents were declared to be entitled to claim refund of amount so deposited by them.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants enacted the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 to provide for the continuance of the powers to control the supply and distribution of trade and commerce in foodstuffs. Originally the appellant Government of Punjab issued Notification No,SOF(Sugar)13(72)/82, dated 14-10-1982 completely restraining the sale of sugar in the open market produced during the crushing season 1982-83. The above-said Notification was followed by another Notification No, SOF(Sugar)6(27)/83, dated 21-3-1983 permitting the respondent and other sugar mills 20% of the total quantity produced by sugar mills during the crushing season 1982-83.
The Notification SOF(Sugar)13(72)/82, dated 14-10-1982 under section 3 of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 fixed the ex-factory price of sugar Rs,8101.50 per Ton for the respondent mills as well. The General Manager of all sugar mills were directed by memo. No,SOF(Sugar)6 (27)/83, dated 9-5-1983 including the respondent-mills to deposit Rs,7.90 per Kg. On account of sale of sugar in the open market against the special quotas in the account of Federal Government under the Head of Accounts stated therein. In pursuance of Federal Government decision stated in the memo. Dated 10-8-1983 respondents mill and other mills were relieved of their obligation w.e.f, 1-8- 1983 to contribute to the Export Fund which had become due. However, they were directed to deposit the agreed contribution immediately which had become due to the Government treasury.
The respondent-mills clarified vide its memo.KSM/241, dated 27-11-1983 that out of 2500 metric tons which it could sell in the open market only 1520 Metric Tons could be sold in the market. The rest of 920 M.T. Was neither lifted by the buyer nor any amount was paid to the respondents as its sale price. So it was concluded that nothing more was due to be deposited by the respondent-mills. It was further requested that no further amount being due from the mills, no further amount be deducted from its mills. However, the above-said clarification of the respondent-mills was not kept in view and acted upon. The respondent-mills filed writ petitions to get relief before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi which were allowed by learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment, hence these appeals with leave of the Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 5-6-2002 to IA consider the question whether notification without having been notified in official gazette could be validly acted upon?
4. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab on behalf of the appellants and perused the record.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab submitted that non-issuance of notification and publication thereof would not invalidate the notification. In the said respect reliance has been placed upon (i) Muhammad Siddique v. Market Committee, Tandlianwala 1983 SCM R 785 and (ii)
Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal heirs and others 1991 SCM R 2180.
6. We find no substance and merit in the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab on behalf of the appellants.
7. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that notification has not at all been published in the official Gazette in the instant case, hence there is no question of its issuance with delay. Section 3(1) of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 reads:- "3. Powers to control, supply, distribution, etc. Of foodstuffs.--- (1) The Government, so far as it appears to it to lie necessary or expedient for maintaining supply of any foodstuffs or for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair price, may, by notified order, provide for regarding or prohibit the keeping storage, movement, transport, supply, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption thereof and trade and commerce therein."
The above provision of law makes it clear that orders with regard to control supply, distribution, disposal of the foodstuffs is to be made by notified order for the purpose of regulating or prohibiting the keeping storage, movement, transport, supply, distribution disposal of the foodstuffs. Notified order would mean notification through publication in the official Gazette and not by passing an order and keeping the same in the office of the appellants. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190 wherein this Court observed: "The word "notification", according to section 2(41) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act VI of 1956 "shall, mean a notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette."
The above provision in section 3 of the said Act clearly and specifically states that order is to be notified for the purpose, therefore, the contention of learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab that non-issuance of notification in the official Gazette would not invalidate the Notification has no merit and substance. It is also settled proposition of law that if law has provided to a particular act in a particular manner the same is to be done in that particular manner or not. The notified G declaration could take effect from the date of publication in the Gazette and not any prior date. In the instant case it has been conceded by the learned Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the appellants that notification has not yet been ,published, therefore, we find no legal or factual infirmity with the impugned judgment, consequently no exception could be taken to it.
8. Accordingly, these appeals have no merit, which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.