' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- This single judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No,2519 of 2008 as well as 3521 of 2008, as both arise out of similar facts and assail the same S.R.O. No,790(I)/2005 dated 5th of August, 2005 by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they deal in the business of pesticides and were being regulated under Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance, 1971 and Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 1973 were only required to maintain a qualified technical staff consisting of Entomologist, Plant Pathologist and Toxicologist and petitioners were fully complying with the above requirements. Subsequently, through notification dated 13-1-2004 amendment was inserted to the effect that persons engaged in the business of Agricultural Pesticides beyond one Province shall maintain ten adequately qualified persons. Nom., through the impugned S.R.O.790(I)/2005 dated 5-8-2005 has been issued whereby the persons running their business in the Province of Punjab had to maintain ten agriculture graduates. This S.R,O. Is under attack before this Court in these writ petitions.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are only the distributors, therefore, the above S.R.O. Is not applicable to their case and even otherwise, it is contended that S.R.O. Dated 5-8-2005 is ultra vires of Articles 2-1, 4 and 8 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; that Government was not authorized to issue such an order in terms of section 29 of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 and that impugned S.R.O. Is also discriminatory as in other Provinces less number of agricultural graduates are required to be employed.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed these writ petitions on the ground that framing of rules is the prerogative of the Federal Government and the Legislature; that keeping in view the different population and cultivatable area, different number of field staff has been required to be employed in the four Provinces, thus, the petitioners cannot claim discrimination. It is further argued that Legislature in its intent has laid classification which in the facts and circumstances is quite reasonable and covered by Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. I have considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record.
6. According to their own case as built up in para. No,3 of the writ petitions, the petitioners are registered under Rule 9(5) of the Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 1973 and the same reads as under:-- - "Pesticides shall be imported only by a person to whom a certificate of registration is issued under rule 4 or permitted import of pesticide under rule 9A and shall be supplied and distributed either by himself or by his authorized distributors duly registered with the respective Provincial Government."
' As the above quoted rule indicates, registration of the petitioners is not only in the capacity of distributor, their licence would cover the import and supply also. In these circumstances the petitioners cannot claim any discrimination or deny applicability of the impugned S.R.O.
7. There is no doubt Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 stipulated that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of law and this Court while enforcing the fundamental rights can declare a law to be void if it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution such like Article 25 thereof. But, under Article 25 of the Constitution, equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike, as such reasonable classification has been permitted by this Court as well as by the apex Court and in order to make a classification reasonable, it should be on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out and the differentia must have rationale nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification. Even a geographical distinction/ classification is permissible provided it is based on the particular interest of the geographical area which is distinct as compared to the remaining i,e, those who have been excluded or differentiated.
Keeping in view the above analogy, the impugned S.R.O. Makes amendments in the Agricultural Pesticides Rules, 1973, to the effect:--- "(a) In rule 9, in sub-rule (5) for clause (c) the following shall be substituted, namely:---
(c) who maintains an adequately qualified staff at the places where operations are carried out, as per strength given for each province in the following namely: Province of Punjab At least 10 Agricultural Graduates Province of Sindh At least 4 Agricultural Graduates Province of N.-W.F.P. At least 2 Agricultural Graduates Province of Balochistan At least 2 Agricultural Graduates"
' Now the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, as detailed above, is that they have .Been directed to maintain at least 10 Agricultural Graduates, whereas, other Provinces are required to maintain less number of Agricultural Graduates, whereas, the Pesticide business is the same in all provinces, as such, the petitioners claim to have been discriminated against. Apparently the above argument does appear to have substantial force, but considering the above analogy that Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 where provides protection against discrimination, it also allows classification but of course reasonable. Now, seen with above back ground, the Legislature in its intent drew a classification to the effect that in Province of Punjab at least ten Agricultural Graduates be maintained as compared to other Provinces where this requirement is for less number of Agricultural Graduates, the reason is quite obvious that the Province of Punjab not only carries more population as compared to other but it also is the biggest Province in terms of agricultural property, thus, there are much more chances of pesticides business to flourish in the Province of Punjab as compared to others. In these circumstances the above classification among businessmen of differently placed Provinces is quite reasonable and an intelligible differentia is apparent which is covered under four corners of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as the guidelines laid by the 'apex Court in the case Abdul Baqi and others v. Muhammad Akram and others PLD 2003 SC 163 and Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary and 3 others v. Mejee Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Mardan and others 1997 SCM R 1804. The above argument of the petitioners, therefore, is repelled.
7-A. Rule 29 of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, fully empowers the Federal Government to make rules for carrying the provisions of this Ordinance into effect in consultation with the Agriculture Pesticide Technical advisory committee and after previous publication in the official Gazette. Thus, the authority of the Federal Government to issue the impugned S.R.O carrying out amendment in these rules could not be questioned, especially when the same already stands inserted in the statute per force of the said S.R.O.
8. Even otherwise, the Federal Government being the authority having promulgated the Pesticides rules was/is fully empowered to make amendment therein per force of section 29 of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 as well as under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. In this respect reliance is placed on the case Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman v. Inayat Rasool 2003 SCM R 1128, therefore, on this ground also, the impugned S.R.O.
Cannot be assailed through these writ petitions.
9. For what has been discussed above, I find no force in these writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed.