In this appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, order dated A 26-11-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No,14293 of1 A 2008 has been challenged.
2. Facts as disclosed in this appeal are that the appellant is a Chairman of Al-Shafa Welfare Trust, which has been duly registered vide instrument bearing No,8884, Bahi No,1 Volume No,13831 dated 1-9-2001 with sub-Registrar Model Town, Lahore and with the Registrar Joint Stock Companies Lahore under the Society Registration Act 1860. Appellant claimed to be NGO, which provides health facilities, free of cost and financial aid to the needy persons. It is stated that facility of the free check up is also available to the patients, "Aata Chakki" four in numbers have been installed for the purpose of grinding wheat and it is stated that some time the flour "Aata" is supplied to the orphan and poor people. In nutshell, it has been prayed that the Food Department is providing subsidized wheat to the other flourmill owners in the Punjab but petitioner is being B dealt with discriminately.
Constitutional petition brought by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 26-11-2008.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the controversy has not been appreciated in true perspective. It is further argued that the appellant NGO is a registered body and is entitled to the benefit of the subsidized wheat from the Government.
4, Conversely the learned Addl. A.G. Argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on sound judicial consideration. It was argued that the case of the appellant is not at par with the flourmill owners who are being given subsidized wheat by the Food Department.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case built up by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the petitioner is a licensee of the Food Department and the said licence in the Form-A, in schedule II has been issued to him which has the effect of granting permission to run the business in a lawful manner. Therefore, he is entitled to be given subsidized wheat. He has relied upon Taj Din and Zilla Council Kasur and 3 others (PLD 1990 Lah.
269) to contend that the licence has been granted by the Department whereafter, no hurdle could be created by the Food Department to get subsidized wheat. Relying on Kh. Imran Ahmad v. Noor Ahmad (1992 SCMR 1155), it was argued that Article 18 of the Constitution gives definite assurance of the lawful business of trade and profession and any restriction regarding the freedom of trade or business imposed by the Department could be struck down. The arguments have no force. The Government of Punjab, Food, Department vide Notification dated 28-8-2008 in exercise of his power under section 3 of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, has formulated the flour milling policy by which, the subsidized wheat could only be released to the flourmills. The supply is made on the basis of number of roller bodies and quota has been fixed for the purpose that the said facility is being made available to only those flourmills, which are enlisted with the Food Department. Section 3 of the Foodstuffs Control Act 1958 in terms provide that the supply shall be made to the flourmills on the basis of Licencing system and the price of the Foodstuffs, shall be controlled by the Government. The flourmill owners are not entitled to sell the flour "Aata", without affixing of the rates by the Government because a reasonable restriction has been imposed by the Government of Punjab. Under item No,V of the policy dated 28-8-2008 drawn by the government it has been made imperative that grinding of the said wheat will have to justify through electricity bill for the grinding of the wheat obtained from the Food Department, the sole object of which is that the Food mills are not entitled to sell the subsidized wheat in the open market and E the Government would retain effective control so far as the fixation of the price and supply of the "Aata" is concerned. In Taj Din case supra, the principle of law laid down is that under the Local Government Ordinance, the place for the establishment of private markets can be maintained at any place within the local area of an Urban Local Council under a licence granted by the Urban Local Council and in conformity with the conditions of such licence, licensee can transact his business. The said case was arisen out of the Local Government Ordinance 1979 and the issue in that case was entirely different. The department has not imposed any clog on the appellant or restriction to run lawful business or trade. In the case in hand the F question involved is entirely different. The Food Department has formulated a policy by which the subsidized wheat cannot be supplied to the Chakki owner because their case is not at par with the flourmills, which is consisting of certain roller bodies. The Chakki owners are entitled to sell the "Aata" in open market and in a manner they like and they are not controlled by the Food Department whereas the case of the flourmills is entirely different.. If subsidized wheat is being supplied to the flourmills, they are under the controlling jurisdiction of the Food Department whereas there is no restriction imposed on the Chakki owners. Similarly the view taken in Kh. Imran Ahmad v. Noor Ahmed and another (1992 SCM R 1152) by the Apex Court is not applicable to the case is hand. In the said judgment also the import of Article 18 of the Constitution has been discussed and a broad proposition of law has been laid down in respect of restriction on the freedom of trade or business or profession. In the said judgment it was observed that only the reasonable restriction can be imposed. In the case in hand, no restriction at all has been imposed upon the Chakki owner to run the business. Appellant claims to be treated at par with the mill owners, to which he is not entitled to be treated because the Chakki owners have not been enlisted with the Food Department in accordance with the policy under section 3 of the Foodstuffs Control Act. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on sound judicial consideration. No illegality or error in the said order is found. We are not persuaded to interfere in the order dated 26-11-2008.
6. Appeal has not merits and the same is dismissed.