' In order to transport the contingents of Pakistan Army deputed to serve with United Nations for Peace Keeping Missions in pursuance to U.N. Security Council Resolution No,1590(2005), an agreement (Contract No,4 of 2008 Log-4) dated 10-3-2008 was entered between appellant No,2 Army Welfare Trust, its subsidiary Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited appellant No,1 and the Logistic Directorate Branch G.H.Q. Pakistan Army; that the appellant No,1 Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited would provide the facility of the charted planes and in consequence of the above said agreement, the Pakistan Army Troops were sent by the appellants to Sudan through the charted planes; that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 vide demand letters dated 28-4-2008, 23-2-2009, 14-3-2009 and 24-3- 2009 asked the appellants to pay embarkation charges of Pakistan Army Troops/Passengers; that the appellants through Writ Petition No,797 of 2009 sought the declaration df above mentioned notices having been issued without any lawful authority, as not binding on appellants on the.
Grounds:--
(a) that respondent No,1./Civil Aviation Authority was established under Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance (No,XXX) of 1982 (hereinafter referred as 'Ordinance') for the promotion and regulation of Civil Aviation activities and to develop infrastructure for the purpose under section 6(3) of the Ordinance. Civil Aviation Authority was to prepare scheme for the purposes and to generate/collection of the revenue at the airports and aerodromes, further infrastructure and measures could be adopted under the Regulations. Without framing any such regulations such powers could not have been exercised--- "in respect of such works, airports, airfields and things connected therewith as owned by the Federal Government and established for the exclusive use of defence services."
(b) As the appellant No,1 Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited transported the Pakistan Army Troops on UN Peace Keeping Mission under contract with GHQ of Pakistan Army, therefore, these Services cannot be equated with that of Civil Air Transport Services, thus is covered under section 6(3) of Ordinance;
(c) that NOC dated 13-3-2007 by GHQ Pakistan General Staff Branch (Military Operation Directorate) for transportation of Pakistan Army Troops exempts them from all airport taxes;
(d) that under section 11 of the General Terms of Letter of Assist dated 22-1-2008 from United Nations vide section 7 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities to U.N exempts for payment of direct taxes and duties other than taxes and duties, which are no more than charges for public utilities;
(e) as Army Welfare Trust appellant No,2 through an agreement utilized the services of Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited (appellant No,13 for transportation of the troops at the airports for and on behalf of GHQ Pakistan Army Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan and appellant No,1 was to receive the maximum service charges of Rs,500,000 per each contract of transportation;
(f) that Pakistan Army Troops transported by the appellant No,1 Askari Aviation under the Contract by charted planes and they were never issued any tickets, therefore, they cannotbe equated with the international passengers travelling by commercial airlines, hence, no embarkation charges could be levied on them; and
(g) as no regulation as required under section 16(3) read with section 27 of the Ordinance was framed nor published in the official gazette as required under section 20-A of the General Clauses Act, therefore, no such embarkation fee could be levied nor demanded.
2. Learned Single Judge in Chamber sought para wise comments from respondents Nos.1 to 4, which were submitted. For facility of reference paras. 4 and 6 are hereby reproduced:- "(4) The contents of paragraph 4 are incorrect to the knowledge of the answering respondents.
The respondents have not replied or given any comments to the Certificate dated 13-3-2007 issued by the GHQ, Army General Staff Branch, Military Operations Directorate (Annexure-C), which provides, 'Officers, JCOs and other ranks proceeding on government duty to UN Peace Keeping Missions are exempt front airport taxes." In this connection, a recent certificate of GHQ dated 29- 5-2009 confirms Pak Army Troops on UN Peace Keeping Missions are proceeding on government duty and exempt from airport taxes (copy. Annexure-B). The levy and collection of embarkation charges under Clause 7(7.1) AIP Pakistan Annexure-A is without jurisdiction and lawful authority, as admittedly from the para wise comments, it is evident, no regulations having been relied upon, there are no such regulations having been framed by the Specified. Authority under section 16(3)
(ii) of the Ordinance, 1982. Reference to AIP Pakistan is, therefore, irrelevant and CAA cannot levy, collect or empower imposition of any charges or fees.
(6) The contents of paragraph 6 are incorrect to the knowledge of the answering respondents and hence denied. Reliance on GHQ, Military Operations Directorate dated 20-4-2000 (Annexure-E) is irrelevant, as this has been superseded by the Certificate dated 13-3-2007 (Annexure C to the petition), and certificate dated 29-5-2009 (Annexure-B to rejoinder), which clearly states, "Officers, JCOs and other ranks proceeding on government duty to the UN Peace Keeping Missions are exempt from airport taxes". It is denied that non-payment of embarkation charges on Army troops is a wilful loss to national exchequer, as levy and collection of embarkation charges does not form part of Federal Consolidated Fund and is not part of the national exchequer but belong to CAA Fund created under section 16(1) of the CAA Ordinance, 1982."
3. After hearing both asides vide impugned order dated 28-3-2011 writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this Intra-Court Appeal.
4. At the preliminary stage, as notice was issued to the respondents, therefore, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 put appearance and arguments from both were heard.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterated the arguments and grounds above mentioned while narrating the facts with the addition that the learned Single Judge in Chamber did not appreciate the arguments advanced, rather, the impugned order is result of mis-application of facts and law on the subject. Learned counsel argued that under Articles 4(1) and 24(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the appellants cannot be deprived of their property and no tax can be levied including the embarkation charges except as provided under the law; that as per section 16(3) of Pakistan Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1982, the authority was only to levy the embarkation charges to be paid by the passengers. Learned counsel argued that as per AIP aeronautical charges including landing charges route, navigation charges and other charges arc services charges and the charges levied on account of services rendered cannot be exempted, however; according to Clause-7(7.1)B of AIP, it is specifically provided that the United Nations owned registered aircrafts are exempted from landing and parking charges. Until and unless, regulations are framed under section 16(3) read with section 27 of the Ordinance and are published under section 20-A of the General Clauses Act, no such embarkation charges could have been demanded by the respondents/Civil Aviation Authority. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Messrs Fatima Enterprises and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others (1999 M LD 2889), International Brands (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Islamabad and 3 others (2005 PTD (Tribunal) 2229. It was further argued that as the appellants were performing their works connected with the Federal Government as they are required to charter Aircrafts by GHQ/Ministry, of Defence Government of Pakistan to carry Pakistan Army Troops on United Nations Peace Keeping Mission, therefore, no such taxes/charges could have been demanded by the respondents; that under section 16(3) of Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1982, the embarkation fee only can be charged and imposed on passengers travelling by air. The Pakistan Army Troops on any stretch of imagination could not have been treated as passengers as they were never issued any tickets and they were travelling by charted planes, thus the demand by the respondents regarding payment of embarkation fee was illegal and without any lawful authority. The learned counsel for the appellants also reiterated the stand mentioned in the grounds of the writ petition as well as the arguments earlier advanced and prayed that the impugned order dated 28-3-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber be set aside and the notices issued by the respondents be declared as unlawful and ineffective upon the rights of the appellants.
6. Contrary to that, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 4 has vehemently opposed the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the appellants on the grounds that the appellants through the writ petition as well as through the instant I.C.A. Confusing their status as they are a private limited company, performing their functions under a Contract with the Pakistan Army/GHQ.
Learned counsel argued that a preliminary objection was raised by respondents Nos.1 to 4 at the time of hearing of the writ petition about the maintainability of the writ petition. The appellants being a private limited company engaged in commercial activities and their services were utilized by the GHQ/Pakistan Army for transporting the Pakistani Troops on Peace Keeping Missions of United Nations, while paying them costs of their services; that they were liable to pay all the taxes/fee, as no such exemption was provided by the Government of Pakistan/United Nation in the letter of Assist. Learned counsel referred the agreement dated 10-3-2008 between the appellants and the Directorate Logistic Branch GHQ Pakistan Army, wherein under Article 2(3), the appellants were liable to pay all costs including the Government Taxes etc; that as the appellants are Private Limited Company involved in commercial activities, therefore, they cannot be equated with the Government of Pakistan or United Nation on any stretch of imagination as their- services were only utilized on commercial basis after payment of their service charges. As the appellants have provided the charted planes and air lifted troops and used the Airport facility under the control of Civil Aviation Authority, respondents Nos.1 to 4, therefore, they were liable to pay embarkation charges as passengers/ troops were transported by them and the planes used by the appellants were not owned by the United Nation, rather were hired by the appellants for the completion of their contract. Learned counsel while referring Army Welfare Sugar Mills Workers Union v. Army Welfare Sugar Mills (2009 SCMR 2002) SWE-PAK Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Registrar Trade Unions, Balochistan and another (1992 PLC 405) argued that the appellants are only involved in commercial activities, therefore, they are not performing their functions with relations to the affairs of the Federation or that of Armed Force on any stretch of imagination, therefore, they cannot be exempted from payment of embarkation fee. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is specifically provided under section 16(3) of the Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1982 that the Authority can collect the embarkation fee as determined by the regulations. Learned counsel further argued that the non-framing of regulations does not create any hurdle for collection of any such charges by the respondents. In this respect reliance was placed on a judgment passed by the Hon%Ie Supreme Court of Pakistan M.U.A Khan v. M. Sultan and another (PLD 1974 SC 228). And lastly it was argued that the learned Single Judge in Chamber had rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellants/petitioners and this I.C.A. Is also being not maintainable, prayed that it be dismissed.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is first to determine the status of the appellants as agitated in the facts and grounds in the writ petition as well as herein this I.C.A. It was tried to create an impression that the appellants while performing their contractual liabilities, actually representing the GHQ, the Pakistan Army or Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan. In the para wise comments submitted by the respondents Nos.1 to 4, the Civil Aviation Authority etc., it was objected that the appellants did not-submit the Articles/Memorandum of the Association of Company/Trust, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. This objection was also raised by learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 during the arguments even now. Learned counsel for the appellants under the direction of this Court however provided the copies of Articles and Memorandum of association of both the appellants.
Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited Company is shown registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, its objects amongst others are--
(1) To secure contracts for maintenance, operations and management of aircraft (helicopter as well as fixed wing) owned by various government departments, private organizations and individuals.
(2) To establish, operate, maintain and manage airline for the purpose of transportation of passengers and cargo within the country and into other parts of the world subject to permission of the government or other authority wherever is applicable.
(3) To procure, purchase charter, build or otherwise acquire both helicopter and fixed wing aircrafts for providing, selling to government agencies including armed forces, private organizations and individuals.
(4) To acquire aircraft, helicopter, for the purpose of chartering to various agencies including government, private organizations and individuals in and outside Pakistan.
(5) To carry out the business of transportation of passengers and cargo by air, land and water borne means for government, semi government, private organizations and individuals in and outside Pakistan.
(6) To own build, construct, maintain, improve, develop, establish, control, operation and/or manage in Pakistan or elsewhere hotels, clubs and restaurants, motels, snack bars, cafes, inns, ski resorts, places of amusement, recreation, sports and entertainment of all kinds.
(7) To act as tour operators, to provide service to local and/or foreign tourists which may include organized tour arrangements, reservations in airlines visa and travel documents, escort services, hotels reservations, car rentals or other transport facilities and offer itineraries and other services associated with tourism..
(8) To establish, manage and operate warehouses all over Pakistan for storage of goods and cargo including aircraft, spare parts to be transported by land, air or sea.
(9) To provide transport, handle and dispense aviation fuels, oils and lubricants to aircrafts, helicopters belonging to airlines organizations and individuals inside and outside Pakistan and to import and export aforesaid items.
(10 To act as transporters and carriers of passengers and general cargo of all type by air, land or sea; as general sales agents of air lines, shipping lines and of transporters and carriers by land; and to act as travel agents, tour operators, clearing agent.
(11) To assist passengers and provide them with all sorts of facilities in obtaining passport, and visas, completion of travel documents, issue of tickets, grant of travel quotas, booking of passengers and accommodation in hotels, and to provide such other services and amenities as are usually provided by travel agents.
' The Army Welfare Trust is shown registered under the Societies Registration Act, XX1 of 1860 and its objects are:- "To invest money and property in any business and to carry on any trade business, industry and all other profit bearing businesses for the purpose of increasing the assets of the Trust and to dispose of transfer and otherwise deal with the subject-matter and property of the Trust in such manner as the Committee of Administration may deem fit within the framework of the objectives of the Trust".
9. For the purposes to generate money, the chief object of the Trust, through this Memorandum and Articles of Association, appellant No,2 Army Welfare Trust is to carry out the business of flour mills, oil mills, poultry farms, to act as import and export business of the factories, to involve in the business of fish, meat etc., to act as contractor as well as in the bank insurance activities etc. And to carry on business of travel and tourism by establishing travel and tour promoters, agencies at suitable locations.
10. By mere reading of the above mentioned objects as provided in the Memorandum/Articles of Association of the appellants, especially, appellant No,1 Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited, it is clear that being a private Limited Company set up under the Army Welfare Trust to achieve one of its major objects i,e, generation of resources through aviation activities.
11. Here at this stage, the Contract/Agreement dated 10-3-2008 between the appellants and the GHQ Pakistan Army is necessary to refer which says:-- "This agreement. Is made on the 10th day of March, 2008 between Army Welfare Trust/AAL having its Head Office AWT Plaza, 5A The Mall, Rawalpindi (hereinafter called the Carrier and Logistics Directorate, Logistics Staff Branch, General Head Quarter Pakistan Army (hereinafter called the Charterer).
' Article-2 of this agreement reads as under:--
(2) A sum of US $ 3.05 715 7 Million (US Dollars three point zero five seven one five seven Million) approximate or equivalent in Pakistan Rupee (Exact amount as per letter of Assist) will be paid to Army Welfare Trust/AAL in local currency through Controller of Military Accounts (Rawalpindi Command) Rawalpindi on successful completion of the air transportation operation.
(3) The above cost shall include all types of government airport taxes/national and international expenses of operating, repairing and maintaining, and fuelling of the Aircraft during the period of Charter remuneration and expenses of operation/personnel landing fees, baggage charges, ground services/handling charges etc
12. In the above mentioned stipulation between Charterer (GHQ/Pakistan Army) and Carrier i,e, (appellants) are seen, they were assigned the task on the basis of contract by GHQ/Pakistan Army Logistic Cell to carry on contractual liability i,e, transportation of Pakistan Army with the undertaking to be paid as consideration a specified amount for rendering services and the appellants were liable to fulfill their contractual liability i,e, to provide services to GHQ/Pakistan Army for carrying/air lining the troops as required and during that process to pay all airport taxes.
13. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that Pakistan Army Troops were carried/transported by appellant No,1 Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited, therefore, they were performing the functions relating to defence purposes, hence, they were not liable to pay any tax/fee as claimed by respondents Nos.l to 4. We are sorry to observe as this view cannot be subscribed by this Court. Earlier as mentioned in the parawise comments submitted by the respondents Nos.1 to 4, this question especially with respect to Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Limited as an exemption was earlier sought before the Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan and according to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 26-4-2004, the stance of the appellant was not accepted. The relevant portion of the extract from the Minutes mentioned above is hereby reproduced:-- MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD TO EXAMINE VARIOUS ISSUES/REQUESTS PERTAINING TO ASKARI AVIATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED ' A meeting on the above captioned subject was held in MoD on 26-7-2004 under the Chairmanship of Mr.Qamar Zaman Chaudhry JS(VI), MoD. The list of the participants is annexed.
(2) The Chair initiated the discussion by describing the brief background of the case that pertains to various requests/ proposals moved by Askari Aviation (Pvt.) Ltd. (AAL) to CAA through MoD. He then invited AAL and CAA to explain their respective points of view. The, ensuring discussion focused on following points."
EXEMPTION OF LANDING AND NAVIGATION CHARGES VIEWS OF AAL.
' AAL charter flights for Pakistani troops serving with UN may be exempted of landing and navigation charges as is provided under AIP Pakistan and those paid so far be refunded. According to AAL, this exemption will directly benefit the troops, who have to pay these expenses, through Askari Aviation. AAL is entitled to this concession both because they are diplomatically cleared and because they are on UN mission flights. The present policy of Govt. Of confining exemption only to UN owned aircraft is irrelevant because UN does not own any aircraft. View of CAA ' The exemption available in AIP for the aircraft on diplomatic clearance is applicable only to flights with VVIP's (President/ P.M., State guests) on board. AAL doing commercial operations cannot claim exemption on that account. As far as exemption available to UN mission flights is concerned, it is applicable only to UN owned aircraft as per Policy on the subject. Besides the bids on which the contract are awarded to UN mission operators include the cost of these taxes and it is therefore not justified to again ask for that, concession. The rep. Of CAA also produced a letter dated 28th April, 2000 from GHQ, which states as under:-- "As per United Nations rules and Letter of Assist, the travel agency is responsible to clear all landing handling parking and allied charges including passengers's taxes, etc. On spot. This .Directorate signal messages in this regard are also enclosed. Exemption/waiver of said charges on any ground is not justified and is considered wilful loss to the national exchequer."
Decision ' The present policy of confining exemption only to UN owned aircraft will remain intact."
14. As it is also agitated by learned counsel for the appellants that United Nations Organization
(UNO) and its allied departments are exempted from all type of taxes and for that purpose the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of UN was referred, however, section 7 of the said Convention is hereby reproduced:-- "Section 7 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations exempts the United Nations from payment of direct taxes and duties other than taxes and duties that are no more than charges for public utility services. Accordingly, the Government authorities, the United Nations to deduct from the Governments invoice any amount representing such taxes or duties charged by the Government to the United Nations. In the event that any taxing authority refuses to recognize the United Nations exemptions from such taxes, the Government shall immediately consult with the United Nations to determine a mutually acceptable procedure".
15. In the light of above discussion that the activities of appellants thus cannot be termed on any stretch of imagination falling under the ambit of section 6(3) of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Ordinance No,XXX 1982 whereby the application of the CAA over airports, acrodromes, airfields and things connected thereof as were owned and established by Federal Government for exclusive use of defence services the control of Civil Aviation Authority with Airports, aerodromes, air fields and things connected therewith are owned by the. Federal Government. It is specifically provided under section 16(3) of the Ordinance. For facility of reference it A hereby reproduced:-- Civil Avition Authority Fund:---(1)---
(2) .
(1) .
(2)
(3)
(4) .
(5) ..
(6) ..
(3) The authority shall be competent to levy and collect at such rates as may be prescribed by the Authority by regulations from time to time:
(i) ..
(ii) embarkation charges to be paid by the passengers travelling by air; (iii)
(iv) ..
(v)
16. As already discussed appellant No,1 is just a contractor to transport Pakistan Army Troops under the contract through chartered planes and according to Article 3(3) of the Contract No,4 of 2008 LOG-4) dated 10-3-2008 it was agreed without any consideration of fixed amount the air lifting services be provided to the GHQ/Pakistan Army, therefore, in no manner the appellants case can be taken falling under the ambit of section 6(3) of the Ordinance.
17. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants in their writ petition as well as grounds of appeal in the ICA under reference whereby he laid much stress that under section 16(3) of the Ordinance embarkation fee only can be charged from the passengers travelling by air. Learned counsel argued that the troops of Pakistan Army on Peace Keeping Missions of U.N as were lifted by the appellants by chartered planes and they were not provided any tickets, therefore, they could not have been taken as passengers. No definition of passenger is provided under the Ordinance applicable on the subject i,e, Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance (No,XXX) 1982. However, the learned Single Judge in Chamber while deciding this aspect while declaring the Pakistan Army troops as passengers on the basis of dictionary meaning. This objection, however, also can be seen by another angle. As the appellants are claiming their rights on the basis of Agreement dated 10-3-2008 between themselves and GHQ/Pakistan Army whereby they agreed to air lift/transport Pakistan Army Troops of Peace Keeping Missions to UN to their destination. If the contents of said agreement are seen the appellants themselves have termed the said, troops as passengers for that purpose Articles 1,2, 5 and 7 can be referred. In all these Articles the appellants had undertaken to provide certain facilities to the troops/passengers in performance of their contract, therefore, this objection/argument by the learned counsel for the appellants is without any substance.
18. Appellant being a private limited company involved in commercial activities cannot claim that it was performing the functions of Armed Forces as provided under Article 245 of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In order to support this view two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents SWE-PAK Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Registrar Trade Unions, Baluchistan and another, (1992 PLC 405) Army Welfare Sugar Mills Workers Union v. Army Welfare Sugar Mills (2009 SCMR 2002) can safely be referred. In the later judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court Pakistan while deciding a question, whereby Army Welfare Sugar Mills claimed the exemption under section 1(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 on the similar ground as now being agitated by the appellants before this Court claiming that as Army Welfare Sugar Mills was a subsidiary of the Army Welfare Trust and was functioning for the welfare of the armed personnel and their families.
Their lordships while discussing all these aspects in Para-16 of the judgment', it was observed:- "In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that for claiming any exemption under section (4) a functional connection with the Armed Forces as to activities performed in the establishment where a person is employed must be established. At the same time, the functions of the Armed Forces are clearly spelled out in Article 245 of the Constitution and therefore only an installation which is directly connected with such function i,e, defence of Pakistan against external aggression or to act in aid of civil power if called upon to do so must be shown. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the mills in question is neither rendering services exclusively in the Armed Forces nor can it be treated as an installation of such forces. We have, therefore, allowed this appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Hon'ble High Court and restoring the order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad. Above are our reasons for the same. We must acknowledge the able assistance provided by the learned counsel for the parties for which we are grateful"
19. Another objection was also raised by the learned counsel for the appellants at the stage of hearing of the writ petition as well as now during the hearing of the ICA that if at all, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to recover the embarkation fee on troops airlifted by the appellant No, 1 as in order to charge/collect any such embarkation charges, it is imperative for the respondent Civil Aviation Authority first to frame the regulations and then under those regulations any such fee can be levied/recoverable. Admittedly, no such regulations in black and white otherwise are framed however, this question was replied by the learned counsel for the respondents that as through the Legislation, Civil Aviation Authority was allowed to charge any such fee and if any such rules or Regulations are not framed, even then to implement the statute and its intention, it can be done. To support this view judgment cited as M.U.A Khan v. M.Sultan and another (PLD 1974 SC 228) was referred, wherein similar question, whereby under Mines Act (IV) of 1923 in order to recruit the inspectors of the Mines, regulations are to be framed and without framing those regulations, appointments were made and in a writ of quo warranto decision was passed by learned Division Bench of this Court and in a civil appeal, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed:- "It is universally recognized that as regulatory statues have to deal with a variety of situations and subjects, it is not possible for the Legislature itself to make detailed regulations concerning them, and, therefore, the Legislature delegates its power to specified or designated authorities to make such detailed regulations, consistent with the statute, for carrying out the purposes of the parent legislation. The power so conferred is generally in the nature of an enabling provision, intended to further the object of the statute, and not to obstruct and stultify the same. As consequences, the failure or omission of the designated authority to frame the necessary rules and regulations, in exercise of the powers conferred, on it by the Legislature, cannot be construed as having the effect of rendering the statute nugatory and unworkable. Such an eventuality could arise only if the Legislature indicates an intention to this effect in clear and unmistakable terms."
20. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit is in this I.C.A. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber dated 28-3-2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed has rightly been passed and need not to be interfered with.