Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi J.--This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 'Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in a Constitution petition.
2. The facts leading to this petition in the background are that the petitioner in the light of the Export Policy Order (EPO), 2000 applied to the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad for permission to export DAP/Fertilizer to Afghanistan and in pursuance to the reply of the Ministry of Commerce vide letter dated 11.8.2004 that there was no restriction on the export of Fertilizer, under Export Policy and Procedure Order, 2000, he entered into an agreement with an Afghan firm namely M/s. Ramzir Limited Importer Faiz Muhammad Kandhar for supply of 20,000 metric ton of DAP/Fertilizer and also exported some quantity of DAP/Fertilizer under the contract. However, the Government vide notification dated 22.11.2004 changing the policy imposed ban on the export of DAP/Fertilizer to Afghanistan and in consequence to the inability of the petitioner to export the total quantity of. DAP/Fertilizer in terms of contract, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Balochistan at Quetta challenging the legality of the notification by virtue of which ban was imposed by the Government on the export of Fertilizer. The grievance of the 'petitioner precisely was that he entered into an agreement for export of DAP/Fertilizer with the permission of Government but due to the change of policy, he has been deprived of the legitimate right of export of Fertilizer and sustained heavy loss. The petitioner thus sought a declaration that notification of imposing ban on the export of DAP/Fertilizer having no retrospective effect, would not place any restriction on the export of DAP/Fertilizer in terms of the agreement executed by him under the old export policy.
3. The High Court having threshed out the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court on the subject in CPLA No, 99-Q of 2004 Aman Ullah Khan Vs. Secretary Ministry of Commerce and others, held as under-- "4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government appeared on Court notice and opposed the petition. He stated that both the cases referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable, that there is a shortage of urea in the country and is 4 not even possible to meet the domestic requirements, on account of which Federal Government has decided to import the urea.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that petitioners' conduct does not entitle them to relief sought and the petitions have rightly been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment. Admittedly petitioners applied for extension of time after lapse of 17 months and no justifiable reason for this delay is spelt out either in the grounds of petition or in the oral arguments. That being so, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and does not call for interference. Petition having no force is dismissed accordingly."
4. This Court in Zamir Ahmed Khan Vs. Government of Pakistan (1978 SC 327) held that no legal rights could be claimed under the license as under:-- " ............ It was further held that in such cases the emphasis is on policy, and any discretion vesting in the authorities is directed towards attaining the policy's objectives. Under section 3(I) of the Exports Control Act, 1950, The Central Government enjoyed power of the widest amplitude to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control the import of goods. The decisions taken fall within the realm of policy making, and in all such cases orders made must conform to the policy decisions of the Government. Accordingly, the amendment made on, 9-8-1972 in Item No, 49 signified a change in policy and the petitioner was informed that he was being refused the licence because of the change in policy and not because of any other reason. On these facts it was not possible to subscribe to the proposition that a writ of mandamus would lie against the licensing authority so as to have the effect of defeating the policy competently made by the Federal Government."
5. The learned counsel with reference to the judgment dated 31.3.2004 rendered by the Peshawar High Court, in a writ petition filed by M/s. Village Development Organization against the Government of Pakistan involving similar question, has contended that in the case under reference, the right of export of Fertilizer to Afghanistan was claimed on the basis of an export order which was issued before the imposition of restriction on the export of DAP/Fertilizer by the Government and the right was recognized by the Court in the light of principle that change of law would not undo the rights already created in favour of a person as laid down by this Court in Anound Power Generation Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2004 SC 340) 'wherein it was held that a notification containing the administrative decision may not operate retrospectively at the cost of disadvantage to the people in respect of their vested rights. The learned counsel submitted that export of Fertilizer being permissible under the Export Policy Order (EPO), 2000, the petitioner entered into an agreement with a foreign company and notwithstanding the change of policy vide notification dated 12.1.2005 by virtue of which ban was imposed, he had a legitimate right of export of the Fertilizer as per terms of his agreement in the light of principle of promissory estoppel. He argued that in similar circumstances, the export of Fertilizer was allowed in all those cases in which NOCs were issued before the change of policy whereas for no legal justification, the petitioner has been discriminated.
6. The learned DAG, on the other hand, has strongly opposed this petition on the ground that no one can claim a vested right of the export of DAP/Fertilizer on the basis of an agreement with the private company inside or outside the country and in any case the petitioner after availing the full facility of export of Fertilizer under the old policy, insisted for further export of Fertilizer on the basis of his agreement with a foreign company in departure to the new export policy.
7. The judgment of this Court referred above wherein it was held that a vested right created under the law cannot be taken away with retrospective effect being based on different facts is distinguishable and may not be applicable to the present case. The export policy is framed in the public interest and on the, change of policy, the transaction under old policy already in the process would be completed but after enforcement of new policy no one can claim export of Fertilizer under the old policy as of right in the light of principle of promissory estopple on the basis of an agreement executed between the private parties as the principle of promissory estopple is not applicable to the legislative power of the Government to amend the law and change the policy in the public interest. There is no cavil to the proposition that unless it is specifically mentioned in the notification, itself that same is applicable from the previous date, shall have no retrospective effect to take away the legal right already accrued in favour of a person. It may be noted that an agreement between the private parties may have binding force inter se parties but the same cannot be enforced against the third party or the Government without acknowledgement.
8. The next contention of the learned counsel, that an act of State does not prejudice the right of a person accrued in his favour under the law and a legal instrument executed in consonance to the policy of law, would have the same legal status and notwithstanding the change of policy would essentially be given effect by the Government, is not based on any Principle of law and learned counsel for the petitioner also has not been able to show us any provision of law by virtue of which the petitioner could claim benefit of such instrument from the Government is a legal obligation. The rule of beneficial interpretation cannot be claimed on unreasonable construction of law and learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioner was entitled to claim the export of Fertilizer in terms of agreement in question as a vested right under the old export policy. The learned counsel having raised the legal proposition that the impugned notification would have no retrospective effect, has not been able to convince us that the agreement between the private parties for export of Fertilizer under the old policy would be binding under law to be given effect even subsequent to the ban imposed on the export of Fertilizer.
9. In the light of forgoing reasons, we find no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused.