' DR. SAJID QURESHI, J.---Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being an individual has filed a writ petition through Pakistan Overseas Employment Promoter Association (POEPA) which is a Trade Organization, a body that was constituted under a license No,135 dated 19-2-1994, which was granted by the Ministry of Commerce and on 31-5-1994, POEPA was duly incorporated as a company. The Memorandum and Articles of Association provided the conduct of election for the office bearer of Association and each year the election process was conducted. The election Schedule for 2005-06 was issued by the Executive Committee of POEPA but the election could not take place due to the restraining order issued by Director Trade Organizations on that certain changes were required in the Articles of Association and certain corporate formalities were to be fulfilled. On failure to rectify those faults, the Federal Government cancelled/revoked the license of POEPA on disciplinary ground and repeated violation of the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the instructions of the Federal Government in the year 2006 POEPA was a registered company and had not filed mandatory statutory returns to the SECP as were required by law. The petitioner feeling aggrieved about the cancellation of the license of POEPA filed a Writ Petition No, 464 of 2006 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, that lis is now connected with this lis, Then, in year 2007, the new law to regulate and control the trade association in Pakistan came into force under the heading of Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007.
The petitioner, in pursuance to the new law, filed an application for license on 31-8-2007 under the new Ordinance. The Director Trade Organizations on 28-2-2008 stated that license granted to the POEPA stands revoked vide notification dated 25=2-2006, and since the petitioner had moved in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi, under writ petition No,464 of 2006, the matter was pending adjudication. Meanwhile, the respondent No,4 filed an application for the issuance of fresh license for the Trade Organization under the same name as "POEPA" and the respondent competent authority was pleased to grant a new license No,2 dated 18-3-2008 under section 3(2)
(d) of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007. Dispute arose when a new application was submitted by respondent No,4 and was duly approved by the Federal Government and the petitioner's grievance was that his previous Association was still in existence and that the provisions of the new law cannot be attributed to the previous license, since the new law only governs the new license and disqualification cannot be applied retrospectively on the license issued under the previous law.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Trade Organization Ordinance, 2007 was a new Act that implied that the POEPA was an existing Trade Organization which was an Organization licensed under the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961, and that it could apply for the new license and any license granted under section 3 of the Repealed Ordinance, to an existing Trade Organization shall stand revoked from 30-12-2006 and such Organization shall be required to apply for grant of license under a new Ordinance, by the date notified by the Federal Government. That in pursuance of the said new law, the existing trade organization through the petitioner filed an application for a grant of license under Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007 on 31-8-2007, but this was delayed by the Director Trade Organizations for certain reasons, and then on 28-2-2008 the Director Trade Organizations responded, that a license granted to POEPA stands revoked by the decision made by the Federal Government vide Notification dated 25-2-2006, and that the Director Trade Organizations is not the competent authority to make a decision on any application. The learned counsel contends that the Director Trade Organizations had connived with the respondents Nos.4 and 5 and had encouraged a new application for a fresh license under the same Trade Organization namely POEPA and as a result of the connivance the competent authority was pleased to grant a license No,2 dated 18-3-2008 under section 3(2)(d) of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007. That the issuance of another license was illegal and unlawful and that since the POEPA was an existing trade organization, a new license should not, have been granted. Further, the learned counsel contended that the respondents have issued the impugned license ignoring the state of affairs in that the petitioner represents 70% of the members which are about 800 members while the rival respondent group only represents 200 members. Further that according to section 43 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007 an existing trade. Organization which has applied for grant of license shall continue the function as a Trade Organization until the Federal Government decides its application for grant of license and until the first elections are held according to the rules made in the said Ordinance. Since the application of the petitioner has not been decided nor had the elections been held, the new license could not be issued. The application, per se, of respondents Nos.4 and 5 as a trade organization, it was unlawful and illegal.
Once again, the learned counsel iterated that the Director Trade Organizations had acted illegally, mala fide and the impugned license was a result of the respondent authority not representing the majority membership and had exercised its authority unlawfully. That the license No,2 under section 3(2)(d) of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007, the Federal Government was pleased to grant a license to a trade organization within the meaning of clause (q) of section 2 of the said Organization. The trade organization had been granted a license as an Association which was valid for three years commencing from 18th of March, 2008, and was subject to the decision of the High Court in Writ Petition No,464 of 2006. The learned counsel further stated that the earlier license No,135 was revoked by the Federal Government on 25-2-2006 on account of misconduct, violation of its Memorandum and Articles of. Association and wilful defiance of Government orders and instructions. Further, the Director Trade Organizations had stated that the office-bearers and members of Central Zonal Committees (referring to the petitioner) were responsible for revocation of the license No,135. He stated subsections (4) and (5) of section 7 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007 which read as under:-- ' Where the license is cancelled on any ground mentioned in clauses (d), (e), (F), (G), (h), (i) and
(m) of subsection (1) members of the trade Organization concerned found responsible by the Federal Government for the grounds of the cancellation shall be debarred from sponsoring the proposal for grant of license or de novo license to a trade Organization or becoming member of or holding any office of any trade Organization for a period not exceeding three years.
' Where the license of a trade Organization has been cancelled under subsection (1), a member or member of executive committee or employee of such trade organization continues, to impersonate as member, member of executive committee or employee of the trade organization, such person shall be liable to penalties under section 24.
' The learned counsel stated that the Director Trade Organizations had illegally disqualified the petitioner to become member/office bearer of any new proposal and even stipulated that the petitioner continued to impersonate as a Chairman of POEPA which was illegal and liable for legal action. The learned counsel finally stated that they had fulfilled all the corporate requirements and that it was purely a personal matter between the Director, Trade Organization and the petitioner.
' The learned counsel for the respondent began his arguments with that there was no mala fide by the Director, Trade Organizations since in writ petition 464 of 2006 there was no allegation whatsoever stated in the pending lis. The license was cancelled due to the casualness of the petitioner in that he failed to fulfil the corporate requirements and the license was duly cancelled under the 1961 Ordinance. Upon cancellation of the license the petitioner was to approach the Director Trade Organization before 30-6-2007 and in fact the petitioner applied for a new license on 31-8-2007. Hence, the application was not within the stipulated time. The section 4 of the 2007 Ordinance stipulates that the license granted under section 3 of the 1961 Ordinance to an existing Trade Organization shall stand revoked w,e,f, 30-12-2006 and such Trade Organization shall be required to apply for a grant of license under the 2007 Ordinance within the stipulated time. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 stated that the petitioner has no locus standi since the original license No,135 no longer exists as it was revoked/cancelled by the Federal Government on 25-2-2006. He iterated that no returns were filed and that elections of 2004 to 2005 were annulled due to irregularities and violation of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The learned counsel contended that the petitioner should have applied under section 4 of the new 2007 Ordinance on the prescribed form in Schedule B, which he did not. The application was made on 31-8-2007 by the petitioner which was rejected by the decision of the Federal Government on 25-3-2008. That the Organization/Association was in existence and the dispute is with the office bearers of such Organization/Association. Further, he pointed out in the Schedule A submitted by the petitioner section 5 was not deliberately completed, this shows the mala fide of the petitioner.
' The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 further stated that the petitioner should have attached resolutions which were signed by the members of the Organization/Association authorizing him to act on behalf of the said Organization/Association. In this regard, the constitutional, petition on behalf of the Organization/ Association would not be competent unless persons had been authorized by resolution, passed by the members of the Organization/Association. He relied on "Friendship Textile Mills v. Government of Pakistan" 1998 CLC 1767 and "Qamber Ali Baloch v. Principal Daud College" 1987 CLC 371. This writ petition is not competent since no authorization has been placed on record. He further argued that the Association is not an aggrieved one which is pre-condition for grant of relief under Article 119 of the Constitution of Pakistan. An Association having no personal legal right was not an aggrieved party thus was not competent to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Reliance was made on Sabzi and Fruits v. Commissioner, Larkana 2001 .YLR 916. The learned counsel pointed out that under the new 2007 Ordinance there is no designation of the Director Trade Organization only the Administrator, D.G. And the Federal Government is mentioned, hence the petitioner could not make allegations against the Director Trade Organization being solely responsible for the decision which was in fact taken by the Federal Government in accordance with the Ordinance, 2007. The petitioner had actually applied on 31-8-2007 on an application form in Schedule A which was for a new Trade Organization. He stated that the application was received on 31-8-2007 which was neither made as an existing Trade Organization nor filed within the time stipulated 30-6-2007. The Federal Government had actually received two applications for grant of license as a trade Organization under the name and style of POEPA it determined the inter se merit of both applications and granted license No,2 to one of the applicants namely respondents Nos.1 and 2.
3. I have heard the arguments, perused the documents and examined the case law as well.
4. It is clear that the license was initially granted to POEPA in terms of section 3 of Trade Organization Ordinance, 1961 as a trade body to work for promotion and welfare of the overseas employment promoters. Owing to gross mismanagement and failure of the Organization to hold elections the license was cancelled by the Government of the Pakistan on 24-2-1986. The Association approached the Ministry of Commerce for revival of license in 1991 and the Government of Pakistan taking a lenient view issued a fresh license 135 in February, 1994. However, the Association did not function according to the approved Memorandum arid Articles of Association and orders of the Federal Government that were issued from time to time. Its elections was always marred with irregularities and the work was generally annulled in 2004-2005. The Association continued to defy orders and directions issued by the Government of Pakistan. This led to the cancellation of the license of the Association on 25-2-2006 which prompted the petitioner to file a Writ Petition No,464 of 2006 which is clubbed together to this petition. While the petition was pending adjudication, the Ordinance was re-promulgated on 14-12-2007. Since the license was revoked/cancelled by the Federal Government, under the provision of the previous Ordinance, as well as the present Ordinance, all the office bearers have been debarred from sponsoring any Association. The Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961 was repealed by the new Ordinance, and the licenses granted to all trade Organizations under the Repealed Ordinance, were revoked. The existing Trade Organizations were asked to apply for fresh licenses by 30-6-2007. Form of application was given in Schedule A (grant of license as a new trade Organization), Schedule B was meant for applying repeat license by existing Trade Organization whose licenses were revoked at the promulgation of the new law and Schedule D was meant for grant of license "De novo" for those Trade Organizations whose licenses were revoked for any reason other than due to promulgation of new law. The license granted to the petitioner had been revoked on 25-2-2006 much before the new Ordinance was promulgated. It appears that at the time of promulgation of the new law on 14- 12-2007 the defunct POEPA was not an existing trade Organization within the meaning of new law as it did not hold a valid license issued under the Repealed Ordinance, 1961. From, perusing of the record, the existing petitioner's Organization claiming to be an existing Trade Organization did not apply on Form B within the time prescribed, rather he applied on Schedule A meant for new Trade Organization. This shows that the petitioner did not consider himself as an existing Trade Organization and in fact submitted an application on Schedule A on 31-8-2007. The Federal Government had received two applications as stated above, one was on Schedule A and other was Schedule B, the latter application contained details leading to the cancellation of the license under section 135 earlier granted to POEPA, this application was recommended by the Director General, Ministry of Labour and Manpower, (responsible for promotion of Overseas Employment). The Federal Government considered the merits of both applications and decided to accede to the proposal submitted by respondent under section 5 and others and the license under section 2 dated 18-3-2007 was issued in favour of the new sponsors.
' Under 2007 Ordinance, there is a right of appeal under section 21 in that any person or Trade Organization aggrieved by any decision or order of the Administrator may within 14 days of communication of such decision or order prefer an appeal to the Director General. This was not done so in this case and the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court without exhausting this remedy. The petitioner had not provided a resolution from the Association which authorizes him to file a petition before this Court; the Association is not an aggrieved person reliance is made on the above case-law and since this is not an aggrieved party it cannot invoke a writ petition under section 199 of the Constitution. The fault lies with the petitioner who had not fulfilled the corporate requirements and had deliberately confused the issues before the Federal Government, failing to make proper applications and concealing some facts. The petitioner did not avail the remedy of an appeal against the impugned license under 2007 Ordinance. The petitioner has no locus standi nor legal status to file the instant constitutional petition it has not been properly constituted and it has not been filed by a duly authorized person; that there is a factual controversy and has B concealed material facts especially in Form A and had further impersonated as a Chairman and office bearers of defunct POEPA whose license had been revoked. This itself is an offence under section 419, P.P.C.
' In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.