1. ' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-This petition has been brought to challenge the action of the second respondent declaring to issue an import licence to the petitioner in terms of a No Objection Certificate bearing No, 1PWINR, 1/I (1378)/78 dated 13th March, 1979 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries Investment Promotion Bureau (NRI Cell). The other respondents in this petition are the Collector of Customs and the Trustees of the Port of Karachi, but presently the matter concerns the non-issuance of the import permit by the second respondent alone, as it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of the release of the goods would arise upon the petitioner furnishing the copy of the import permit to the Collector of Customs for seeking the release of the goods which have already arrived and are suffering demurrage charges for want of production of import permit.
2. ' The brief facts, as are relevant for the disposal of this petition, are that the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries Investment Promotion Bureau had granted a No-Objection Certificate to the petitioner on 13th March, 1979 for the import of second-hand machinery equipment. The details of such equipment were specified in the no-objection certificate itself, and the case of the petitioner is that be has imported the goods strictly in accordance with the N. O. C. In question. As against this, the letter of refusal mentions that the requiem ire import permit could not be issued to the petitioner as the goods applied for were not "capital goods and machinery". Mr. Hasnain, learned counsel, for the respondents 1 and 2, on being questioned pointedly, was unable to challenge the validity of the No-Objection Certificate dated 13th March 1979, and rightly so, because the said N. 0 C. Would bind the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports in so far as the importation of the goods are concerned. The goods have been specified in the No-Objection Certificate and, therefore, while issuing the necessary import permit applied for, all that has got to be seen by the second respondent is as to whether the goods were in accordance with the list of the items specified in the No-Objection certificate. The reason given in the letter of refusal dated 19th November, 1979 issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports is not that the goods are such as are not covered by the No-Objection Certificate, but an entirely new ground has been introduced, namely, that the goods were not "capital goods and machinery". In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be blamed for having imported the machinery in accordance with the No-Objection Certificate already granted to him by the Government, itself, whose authority cannot be challenged, nor in fact was challenged by' Mr. Hasnain for good and valid grounds. The stand taken by the second respondent, therefore, cannot be defended on any ground whatsoever.
3. ' For the reasons mentioned above, we would accept this petition to the extent of issuing a direction to the second respondent to issue the required import permit on the basis of petitioner's application dated 23rd May, 1979, of course, subject to the petitioner making compliance of the necessary formalities, if not already done by him. The direction and order contained in .The impugned letter of the second respondent is declared as having been made/issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
4. ' We would further direct that since the goods have already arrived and are suffering demurrage at the Port of Karachi, the second respondent shall issue or cause to be issued the required import permit forthwith.
5. ' Mr. Hashmat Habib, learned counsel for the petitioner, further wanted us to issue a direction to the Custom Authorities for issuing a delay detention certificate. However, such a request is premature, and in any case, has to be made in the first instance to the Collector of Customs, and we hope that if accompanied by this order, the Customs Authorities would look into the matter and save the petitioner from unnecessary loss which he is suffering on account of detention of the goods for which he cannot be blamed. The petitioner will have the costs of the petition.