The petitioner is a dealer of the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited and has established a Filling Station at Chak No. 172/W.B, Multan-Delhi Road near Thingi, Tehsil & District Vehari. Through the present constitutional petition the petitioner has called in question a letter dated 22.1.2001 written by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 requesting the latter to cancel Respondent No. l's licence regarding the petitioner's Filling Station. It is not disputed that the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited had obtained a licence to establish a Filling Station at the petitioner's there-mentioned sits from the Federal Government, and now the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited wishes to surrender the said licence and seeks its cancellation by Respondent No. 4/the Federal Government. In these circumstances if the licensee wishes to surrender its licensee then it is not understandable as to how the present petitioner can stand in the licensee's way vis-a-vis such a surrender of its license.
The relationship between the- petitioner and the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited is that of Principal and Agent and their relationship is governed by a contract which also contains an arbitration clause. Thus, if the petitioner is likely to suffer a financial set-back on the basis of the proposed surrendering of licence by the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited then the petitioner has remedies available to his either to invoke the above-mentioned arbitration clause or to sue the Pakistan Oil Company Limited for damages, if so advised.
2. Apart from what has been observed above the impugned letter dated 22.1.2001 written by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 is just a letter of request on which no formal action has been takes by Respondent No. 4 so for. In these circumstances at this stage there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter of waiving of such a letter by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the writing of such a letter by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 can be declared by this Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect for the purposes of issuing a writ of certiorari under Article 199 of the Constitution. Even otherwise, any matter regarding contractual obligations between the petitioner and the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited cannot be enforced through the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court especially when it involves disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioner's performance.
3. For what has been observed above no occasion has been found by this Court for interference with the impugned letter written by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4 and this petitioner, therefore, dismissed.