' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court by making the following prayer:-
(A) By accepting the instant constitutional petition act of closure of the mechanical roti plants with the discontinuation of supply of flour on subsidized rates and without notice to the public at large and to the plant holders may very graciously be decided illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
(B) That the refund and recovery of loan facility from the plant holders and the petitioner may very graciously be declared illegal, mala fide, unlawful, without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
(C) That the respondents be directed to restore the position of mechanical roti plants as per the policy, rules, commitment and agreements for which modalities may be taken recourse to with such changes as may be deemed to the functionality of the mechanical roti plants in the event of rise in the prices in the, interest of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that "sasti roti scheme" was introduced by Government of the Punjab through Ordinance No,III of 2009 published in the official Gazette on 10- 9-2009 and thereafter, a policy was introduced inviting the public-at-large to establish mechanical tandoors. The successful applicants were provided financial facility of Rs,2,35,000/- each and also flour was supplied at a subsidized rate. The Government has now changed the policy and stopped providing subsidized flour to the petitioner which has resulted into the closure of his mechanical tandoor and at the same time, the petitioner is being issued a notice by Punjab Small Industries Corporation for payment of an installment of Rs,16,090/- which is prejudicial to his rights.
3. Conversely, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents has raised the objections regarding maintainability of the instant petition as Province of the Punjab has not been impleaded as a party in the array of respondents, the writ petition comes within the mischief of judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 2010 SCM R 115 (Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others). It is further contended that there is an arbitration clause in the Ordinance and this Court should not interfere in the matter and the petitioner be directed to have a recourse to Arbitration.
4. Learned Law Officer has further submitted that this Court should not interfere into the policy matters of the Government and has relied upon 2011 CLC 116 (Lahore) [Safdar Jamil and others v.
Vice-Chancellor and others]. It has been further contended that in fact, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to settle the contractual disputes and this Court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such kind of disputes in view of the law laid down in 1998 SCM R 2268 (Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others).
5. The learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Law Officer adding that the Government had received different complaints regarding misuse of subsidized flour. Moreover, the subsidized flour was supplied to the mechanical tandoors in order to provide relief to the poor. There is no embargo placed upon the petitioner to run his tandoor on commercial basis and the Government while suspending the supply of flour has also facilitated the petitioner and others by deferring the recovery of loans for an appropriate period.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any document suggesting that the mechanical tandoors have been closed and thus the prayer of the petitioner that Government be directed to restore the operation of mechanical tandoors is misconceived. Moreover, this Court in view of the law laid down in 1998 SCM R 2679 (Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, Karachi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others) should not travel in the domain of policy matters which requires consideration of various factual aspects. The High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the policy decisions and substitute its own decision with the decision of the Government unless it is proved that the decision has been made in excess of jurisdiction or the same is arbitrary and devoid of any justification.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported in 2013 SCM R 1749 titled "Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. And 4 others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt). Ltd. And others" held that policy making is the domain of the Executive and interference in such domain was not the function of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 unless it is violative of the Constitution, law or was product of mala fide.
9. Had there been any embargo placed on the running of tandoors, this Court might have interfered in the policy being violative of the constitutional mandate. Since no such embargo is placed and the petitioner is allowed to operate mechanical tandoors on commercial basis, the act of the Government regarding suspension of flours at subsidized rate should not be interfered.
Apparently the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid repaying the loan facility and the Cheque issued by the petitioner on 24-9-2013 was also dishonoured.
10. The petitioner has failed to implead Government of the Punjab in the array of respondents which is a mandatory provision as enumerated in section 79, C.P.C. And Article 174 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hence this petition is not maintainable.
1 1 In view of my observations, this writ petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.