' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- By the order dated 13-10-2009 the Home Secretary, respondent No.2 has on two grounds cancelled Dealership Licences Nos.126/87 and 127/87 issued in the name of Ijaz Fareed and Company but which were being operated by the petitioners under other names. Firstly, that there are several F.I.Rs registered against the petitioner, inter alia, alleging the issuance of fake licences in order to support illegal sale and trafficking of arms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that the seven F.I.Rs. Registered through a short span of time in the year 2004 and 2005 were motivated by the animus of a police officer serving in the local area at the time. Out of those seven F.I.Rs. The petitioner has been able to obtain acquittal and or/discharge in five F.I.Rs.
And the remaining two F.I.Rs. Are still pending. The second ground of cancellation of the petitioner's licences is that he acquired the dealership licence of Ijaz Fareed and Company under a private agreement of partnership but operated the same under a different name i.e. Mohmand & Company without obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The application for transfer of the licence to the new name was made for the first time in 2007, seven years after the petitioner commenced the business purportedly under the said dealership licences.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on technical grounds relating to the incompetence of a designated hearing officer to decide the matter on behalf of the respondent No.2. That objection however, does not answer the afore-noted two principal grounds upon which the cancellation is based. Clearly with criminal cases pending against the petitioner there should be no question of the dealership licences being resorted. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the so long as any criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, he does not have any entitlement to claim the restoration of the licences. However, if the petitioner successfully obtains discharge/ acquittal in such cases, he seeks a right to approach the competent, authority for the revival/restoration of such licences.
3. On that question learned Assistant Advocate General raises objection that the petitioner has run business for seven years without even applying for permision to operate the dealership licences issued in the name of another person. He submits that the petitioner is disqualified from claiming restoration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several precedents available with the petitioners in which the respondent government authorities have allowed post facto transfer of dealerships where the antecedents of the new operator are satisfactory. On that score the impugned order has not given a finding nor has discussed the past precedents as well as ,the relevant rules on the subject.
4. Accordingly, it is ordered that if the petitioner is able to exculpate himself from all criminal cases registered against him he may approach the respondent No.2 for considering in accordance with law the revival/restoration of the licences which stand cancelled under the impugned order. Since on the precedents claimed by the petitioner and for the relevant law to be disclosed the second ground would have to be decided afresh by the respondent No.2, therefore, the cancellation of the licences shall be held in abeyance until a decision by the respondent No.2 on the said point is made in this matter. The petitioner is granted six months from the date of this order to clear himself of the criminal cases in order to approach the respondent No.2. Beyond that he shall lose the right to claim revival of his cancelled dealership licence. In any event the petitioner shall not at all indulge in the dealership business under the cancelled licences unless the same are restored by the Home Secretary.
5. Disposed of with the foregoing direction.