' ZAKIUDIDN PAL, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 9th of July, 1971 dismissing the plaintiff's second appeal filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Lyallpur dated 5th of November 1969 affirming the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his business of dressing of hides and directing the respondent to issue licence in favour of the plaintiff-appellant under section 92(2) of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
2. The plaintiff-appellant was granted licence by the respondent, Municipal Committee in 1948 for the purpose of carrying on the aforesaid business, which has been called to be dangerous and offensive trade under the relevant provisions of the Ordinance. The licence used to be renewed every year. It was on 18th of April, 1967 when the appellant received a notice Exh. P. 4 issued by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Jaranwala calling upon him to show cause why his licence be not cancelled on account of the complaints received from the residents of the locality that they were feeling great inconvenience by the foul smell emitted during the process of dressing of hides. No action was taken on the aforesaid notice. However, when the appellant applied for grant of licence for the year 1967-68 for carrying on his trade it was refused to be issued by an order dated 28th of June 1967 Exh. P.
5. He was also issued a notice on 22nd August, 1967 (Exh. P. 6) directing him to move his offensive trade outside the limits of the Municipal Committee. Consequently the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction being entitled to carry on his trade at the place where he had been carrying it on since 1948, restraining the Municipal Committee from interfering with his business and directing it to issue him the licence to carry on his trade The civil suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was resisted on the ground that since the licence had lapsed on account of efflux of time and had not been renewed, therefore, no right vested in the plaintiff-appellant to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent to interfere with his business. It was further pleaded by the respondent that licence was refused to be issued on account of the inconvenience expressed by the residents of the locality, caused by the foul smell emitted during the process of hides. The pleadings gave rise to the following issues.
' Whether the orders dated 28-7-1967 and 22-8-1967 issued by the defendants were ultra vires, illegal, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff?
2. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the learned trial Court mainly on the ground that the trade in question being offensive and dangerous required the licence for being carried on and its issuance being discretionary with the Municipal Committee no interference with the impugned orders could be made. The appeal filed against the judgment 1 and decree was dismissed by the learned District Judge, R. S. A. 23 of 1970 was filed challenging the validity of the aforesaid judgment and decree which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 9-7-1971, repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has raised more or less the same contentions as were raised by him before the learned Single Judge and repelled by him. It has been contended that the respondent, Municipal Committee under section 92(2) of the Ordinance can only regulate the conduct and carrying of dangerous and offensive trades and cannot refuse to grant licence to carry on the same. It has been argued that the appellant being a licensee since 1948 has acquired vested right in carrying on the aforesaid trade and as such this right cannot be taken away by refusing to grant him a licence. It has also been contended that since the scheme has not been framed and enforced in compliance with subsection (3) of section 92 of the Ordinance, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant cannot be refused to be issued the licence.
4. We are afraid the contentions raised above have no substance and they been rightly repelled by the learned Single Judge. It is admitted on record that the licence issued in favour of the appellant was not cancelled during the time when it was in force. The appellant did not apply for its renewal before its expiry. He submitted his application for its renewal after it had expired. As such it has been rightly held that where a licence expires by efflux of time without intervention or action by any of the parties and the license is obliged under the law to take out a licence for the next year, then there remains no vested right unless the law or the rule preserve it.
' In the present case renewal of licence had not been provided for as a matter of course on payment of specified amount of fee. As such it cannot be said that any right vests in the appellant so far as issue of licence in his favour is concerned. The learned counsel has cited certain cases in support of his contention that grant of licence creates a vested right. The facts of all those cases are quite different from the present one. In those cases licences were cancelled during the period of their being in force while the licences had not violated the terms and conditions under which they were issued. It was held that in the absence of any violation of the terms and conditions of the licences, the licences were required to be issued notices before their cancellation. This is not the position in the present case. As mentioned above the relevant provision of law required that licence should be got renewed every year which was not done by the appellant so far as 1967-68 was concerned. He applied for grant of licence after its expiry. By that time complaints from the residents of the locality had been received against carrying on of the aforesaid offensive business by the appellant. The very purpose of subsection 2 of section 92 of the Ordinance is to see whether in the given conditions of a locality licence for carrying on dangerous and offensive business should be renewed every year or not. Assessment in this behalf has to be made by the Municipal Committee before taking any decision to renewal of a licence otherwise it would be a matter of routine for every licensee to carry on such trade after depositing the requisite amount of renewal of his licence. The facts and circumstances of the case show that licence was rightly refused to be renewed. Further it is also very much doubtful whether a suit for perpetual injunction was competent after the licence of the appellant had been determined by the respondent Municipal Committee, as held in Muhammad Hashim v. Zulfiqar All Khan, General Manager, West Pakistan, Road Transport Board and others (1). There being no right vesting in the appellant for renewal of his licence to carry on the trade after the expiry of his licence it was discretionary D for the respondent, Municipal Committee to renew the same or not in the given circumstances.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued' while relying upon subsection (3) of section 92 of the Ordinance that since no (1) PLD 1963 Lah. 418 scheme has been framed and enforced, therefore the appellant cannot be refused to be issued licence to carry on his trade. We are afraid this contention has no force. Subsection (3) is quite independent provision and has got nothing to do with subsection (2) of section 92 of the Ordinance. Subsection (31 is an enabling provision which authorises a Municipal Committee to separate certain areas from others for the purpose of 'setting up dangerous and offensive trades there. It does not mean that such trades can be set up 'in such specified areas without licence which has got to be obtained in any case under subsection (2) of section 92 of the Ordinance. If the Municipal Committee has not specified any particular area within the municipal limits where it can allow carrying on of dangerous and offensive trades it would not mean that such trades can be carried on by interested persons without licence. Whether any such area is specified or not licence has got to be obtained by the interested parties. This view gains strength from Municipal Committee, Quetta and another v. Syed Gul Baran and another (1). At this stage Mr. Irshad Hassan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 'a new law on the subject promulgated on 31st of July, 1979 in order to show that subsection (3) of section 92 of the Ordinance has since been omitted. Subsection (3) of section 73 of the new law provides that notwithstanding the grant of a licence under subsection (2) an urban local council may, for reasons to be recorded, and after notice to the person affected, pass an order for the prohibition, closure or removal of any offensive and dangerous trade or article if such action is deemed expedient or necessary to implement the order. It means that the appellant has no case under the new law so far as framing and enforcement of a scheme segregating a particular place within the municipal limits for carrying on an offensive and dangerous trade is concerned.
6. By the time the appellant received second notice dated 22nd of August, 1967 his licence had already expired and he had not applied for its renewal. He was carrying on his trade without any licence being a non-licensee. He was rightly issued the aforesaid notice calling upon him to move his offensive trade outside the municipal limits. We don't find any inconsistency so far as the aforesaid order is concerned in view of the position obtaining at that time.
7. As a result of the above discussion there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1972 Quetta 89