' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition with the following prayer:- "Under the circumstances, it is, therefore, very humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
(1) Accept this petition and set aside all the illegal orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 with regard to food security and livestock being coram non judice, void ab initio, illegal and without lawful authority;
(2) Direct the respondent No.1 to get the matter investigated through NAB/FIA and take necessary action against the culprits in accordance with law, including disciplinary action and recovery of the looted amount on. Account of the reasons explained hereinabove;
(3) The illegal appointment of the respondent No.4 as animal Husbandry Commissioner w.e.f. 9-2- 2012 to 21-6-2013 to with the order of recovery of salaries, perks and privileges, he has illegally received in connection with the said appointment with all consequential effects.
' Any other relief which this honourable Court deems just and proper may also be awarded".
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of instant writ petition are that allegedly respondent No.4, while posted as Animal Husbandry Commissioner, illegally in a very hastily manner permitted respondent No.6 to import 21,000 live diseased sheep from Australia through respondent No.7 in the month of September, 2012, which consignment was rejected by Bahrain authorities due to health reasons but as a result of connivance of the respondents Nos.4 to 6 with each other, respondent No.7 was able to divert the sheep towards Pakistan where the sheep were unloaded without inspection by respondent No.5 at Port Qasim, Karachi, on 4-9-2012, as required under Rule 5 at the Animal Quarantine (Import and Export Animals and Animal Products) Rules, 1980, and were shifted to the Slaughter House maintained by respondent No.6 and the Meat Company (Pvt.) Limited Musa Goat Razzakabad, Karachi, without keeping them in the Quarantine House, Karachi, established by the government for test and examination for a certain period as per Rules Nos.7, 8, and 9 of the aforesaid Rules. The matter was reported in the national and intentional press, hence the authorities concerned had taken samples for examination in the relevant laboratories and the same were found positive. Resultantly respondent No.2 had no other option except to order an inquiry through the Inquiry Committee, constituted vide letter dated 11-9-2012. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted into the matter which established the following violations:---
(i) The said live diseased sheep were originally booked for Bahrain and the ship carrying the same, had started its journey on 4-8-2012;
(ii) Upon rejection of the consignment by the Bahrain authorities for health reasons, the ship was diverted to Pakistan;
(iii) The respondent No.2, in a very hastily manner due to the reasons best known to him, had prompted to issue NOC in the name of respondent No.6 to import the said diseased sheep to Pakistan on 24-8-2012;
(iv) The importers clearing agent informed on 3-9-2012 that the ship loaded with sheep for Pakistan would arrive on 4-9-2012;
(v) The respondent No.5, i.e. The Quarantine Officer who was obliged under Rule No.5 supra to inspect the sheep on the boat and to examine the certificates of health and other relevant documents, failed to perform his duties; ' The sheep were not brought to the Quarantine House to keep there for the prescribed period in order to conduct test and examination thereof but were straightly shifted to the aforesaid Slaughter House of the respondent No.6 illegally and without lawful authority.
' In view of the said report Government of Sindh, vide letter dated 16-9-2012, requested the Director, Animal Quarantine Department, Government of Pakistan to destroy the said sheep. Order for destroying the sheep was passed, which was assailed by the respondent No.6 before the Sindh High Court and obtained stay order, however, ultimately the said Writ Petition was disposed of and as a consequence thereof sheep were destroyed. In the meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, vide letter dated 17-9-2012, also pleased to direct the government of Sindh to hold an inquiry into the matter. A letter was also issued by theGovernment of Sindh to the Federation for urgent inquiry and report within two days. Pursuant to the inquiry so conducted respondent No.2, vide letter dated 25-10-2012, directed the respondent No.4 to blacklist the respondents Nos.6 and 7 and to furnish a complete brief to the Australian government along with taking necessary actions for implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry in letter and spirit. Subsequently, a reminder dated 20-11-2012 was also issued to respondent No.4, but he failed to take any action in this behalf, rather matter was subjected to bureaucratic approach. On 3-3-2009, Federal Government formulated a policy which was duly approved by the Federal Cabinet where under it was specifically provided that there would be no quota regime for specific areas. Said Policy was duly circulated amongst all concerned. However, in utter deviation therefrom, respondents Nos.2 and 4 allocated quota for different stations in the year, 2012 on quarterly basis which was circulated, vide letter dated 2-3-2012. They further deviated to revise the allocation of quota for the second quarter, vide letter dated 25-5-2012. The Animal and Meat Import and Export Association of Pakistan raised serious objections regarding violation of the aforesaid policy guidelines issued by ECC, vide their letter dated 9-4-2012, and the Federal Minister concerned pleased to restrain further export during third quarter of 2012, with immediate effect, vide letter dated 9-7-2012, which was superseded by the letter dated 10-7-2012, which was withdrawn on 27-8-2012, whereas, same was implemented by respondent No.4 vide letter dated 3-9-2012. Similarly, a good number of animals were illegally allowed for export from Islamabad to Afghanistan, via Turkhum border by respondent No.3, as Islamabad's Quarantine was meant for Islamabad Airport only. These animals were neither kept under the quarantine house as required under the rules nor the other laid down procedure was followed. Even a huge number of animals which were meant to be exported from other stations were ordered to be exported to Afghanistan via Peshawar Torkham. In this regard, the then I.G., F.C., Balochistan had written a letter. Dated 4-6-2Q09 to all concerned but no proper action was seen to have been taken by the competent authorities in this behalf. Respondent No.4 who while serving as Animal Husbandry Commissioner, proposed to revalidate the Quarantine House at Jogian G.T. Road, Peshawar through the owner of the plot who had already stood expired, which fact was pointed out by the Secretary concerned with the remarks that "How a rent agreement was made with a dead man?". But still no action was taken by the respondent No.1 regarding inefficiency and misconduct evident on behalf of respondent No.4. Petitioner kept pointing out the aforesaid illegalities as a result whereof respondents Nos.3 and 4 restrained the subordinate officers of the petitioner to allow him to have any access to any of the files and despite his all out efforts, files were not being routed through the petitioner for onward submission to respondent No.3. Petitioner filed a representation before respondent No.2 in this regard but no action was taken thereon.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no such provision available in law to accept a consignment which has not been directly routed from the exporting country. If the consignment was rejected by the Bahrain Government, it should have been returned to. Australia and could not have been diverted to Pakistan in the absence of NOC, health certificate, commercial invoice and bill of lading in the name of Pakistani importer/respondent No.6, issued prior to loading of the animals/sheep in the vessel. Whereas, ship carrying the sheep was diverted to Pakistan on 23-8-2012, at the request of the respondent No.5, who applied for NOC on 24-8-2012, issued by the respondent No.4 illegally and without lawful authority. Regarding NOC learned counsel submitted that it does not mention that the sheep were originally meant for Bahrain and not for Pakistan, which means that either the respondent No.6 concealed the same or the respondents Nos.4 and 6 joined hands with each other. Moreover, the same was issued subject to conditions mentioned under para 2 thereof. It means that said conditions/prerequisites were not fulfilled prior to issuance of NOC. This also shows that respondent No.4 was all out to issue the said NOC to the respondent No.6. Learned counsel contended that section 3 of the Pakistan Animal Quarantine (Import and Export of Animals and Animal Products) Ordinance, 1979, specifically provides not only to regulate and prohibit import and export of animals but it lays certain conditions on the same under subsections (2) and (3) of the Ordinance. Responding to the contention of the respondents regarding requirement of NOC for import of the said sheep learned counsel submitted that the same is belied by respondents' own conduct as the respondent No.5 himself applied for the same and respondent No.4 issued NOC without fulfilling the codal formalities. Learned counsel further contended that respondents Nos.1 to 5 were required to perform their duties and functions strictly in accordance with law and follow the due process but they failed to do so. Reliance was placed on the case-law reported as (PLD 2010 SC 1), (PLD 2010 SC 265), (1998 SCM R 1863), (1994 SCM R 2244), (PLD 1999 SC 1126), (PLD 1997 SC 563). Learned counsel added that, vide order dated 25-10-2012, respondent No.2 directed respondent No.4 to blacklist the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, but he as well as his successor in the office/respondent No.3 remained sitting over the file and did not take any action in this behalf which shows their connivance and collaboration in the offence and misconduct. Furthermore, as per decision of ECC duly approved by the Federal Cabinet, that there will be no quota regime for specific areas regarding export of live animals, respondents Nos.2 to 4 deliberately, maliciously and malafidely, deviated therefrom and specified/revised quota according to their desires. However, letters specifying quota were subsequently withdrawn but the motive was to promote certain mafias for illegal gains. Learned counsel added that the attitude of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 towards their duties is also evident from their act that they failed to take action on the reports regarding smuggling of animals furnished by the I.G. \ F.C., Balochistan, vide letter dated 4-6-2009. In addition to that respondent No.4 allowed an agreement with an expired person for which the respondent No.2 had specifically raised a question as is evident from the note sheet dated 20-4-2011. Moreover, they also kept on restraining the inferior officers of the petitioner from putting up any file before the petitioner and made the petitioner sit in the office without any work due to reason that he was pointing out their irregularities. While objecting to the appointment of respondent No.4 as Animal Husbandry Commissioner (BS-20), learned counsel contended that the same was to be filled by promotion through CSB with approval of the Prime Minister of Pakistan or even if the same was required to be held on current charge/acting charge basis by an inferior officer of BS-19, and the same also has to be done with the approval of the Prime Minister and not otherwise. But respondent No.4 an officer of BS-19 was appointed as such in his own pay scale by the Secretary and not by the Prime Minister, illegally and without lawful authority, as there is no provision under any rule supporting such appointment. About the Report submitted by FIA, learned counsel submitted that culling of the sheep has been made its focal point in the whole inquiry report and recommendations regarding action against the persons involved in the same has been made, whereas, corrupt practices and irregularities committed by the respondent No.6 regarding import of said sheep and fabrication of documents has not been addressed. Moreover, respondent No.8/FIA, in its report has also failed to answer the question as to how an officer of BS-19 was allowed to hold the post of BS- 20 and that too by the Secretary, Ministry of NFS&R/respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No.4 has performed his duties within four corners so his official capacity and allegations levelled against him through instant Writ Petition which are result of official grudge of petitioner against respondent No.4 and report submitted by FIA are vague and without any solid evidence. Respondent No.4 further submitted that Senate Standing Committee for Ministry of National Food Security and Research as well as National Assembly Standing Committee for Ministry of National Food Security and Research examined the administrative role of ministry on the in question incident i.e. Culling of the sheep but did not find out any act of colourful exercise of their powers and even negligence against the Ministry as well as concerned employees of Government. Learned counsel further contended that after issuance of letter No.DY1601/AHC-2012 dated 16th September, 2012, by which Animal Quarantine Department was directed to take legal and lawful action in the matter against the importing firm and cooperate with the Livestock and Fisheries Department Government of Sindh, due to media reports and reports which were prepared by the Government of Sindh, under the urgent circumstances and immediate threat to life of the citizens, there were no other option available with the Federal Government except to accept and take prompt action in the light of letters/reports of the Sindh Government in the greater interest of the public-at-large.
But,unfortunately FIA in their report submitted before this Court deliberately submitted that copy of the letter upon which endorsement of the high ups of the Animal Husbandry Commissioner were not shown, which is a calculated mala fide move on the part of the FIA officials to twist the circumstances against respondent No.4 i.e. Animal Husbandry Commissioner of that time.
Whereas, the Federal Government letter addressed to the Secretary, Government of Sindh signed by the respondent No.4 had endorsement of high ups as reflected in the record. Moreover, Investigating Officer of FIA Islamabad, has not recorded fresh statements of the then Secretary.
And Additional Secretary to know the exact level of involvement of 'nigh ups in Provincial and Federal governments in such high profiled issue which remained on ground for about 45 days including its proceeding in Division Bench of Sindh High Court at Karachi for more than 30 days.
Learned counsel further explaining the situation at that time submitted that Director, Animal Quarantine Department was directly submitting the reports. Of the imported sheep to Additional Secretary of the Ministry which fact is evident from his letter No.F.5-9/86-AQD(770) dated 10th September, 2012 on the subject of import of 21000 sheep from Australia. Further, the senior most technical office; of the Ministry of National Food Security and Research, the then Member Animal Sciences, Islamabad/respondent No.3 was enquiry officer in lieu of guiding the ministry about the health status of the imported sheep whose advice diverted the mind of the Ministry towards black listing of the importing and exporting firms of in question sheep. Moreover, as per second Enquiry Committee Report submitted to. The Ministry by "Dr. R.H. Usmani/respondent No.3, Member Animal Sciences, PARC Islamabad, who joined the rest of team of the Board/Committee members and the experts at 12.30 p.m., three of the five sheep were showing the symptoms of has marriage after death, company and poor clotting blood stained fluids oozing from natural orifices. Based on these symptoms, the experts pointed Anthrax in imported sheep and it became matter of grave concern for Provincial and Federal Governments as well as for Divisional Bench of Hon'ble Sindh High Court.
Federal Government was not in a position at any stage to take a decision in favour of importer due to suspected disease of Anthrax and also due to sub-judicious nature of the case. Learned counsel while commenting on the FIA Report submitted that as per this report FIA Officer witnessed alive sheep with somebody, creating mystery whether all the sheep were culled? Or distributed among some officials or persons after Sindh High Court decision? And when he came to know that importer was punished for political reasons then what were the compelling circumstances under which he preferred to be silent on this issue and not to speak even a single word on this very important issue? Moreover, as to why FIA officer could not assess/directly record fresh statements of Sindh Government officials effectively involved in the incident to know about the facts including Dr. Nazeer Kalhoro, who originally highlighted one disease named Act in my ovis which subsequently after detail scrutiny and inquiry found to be a bogus name of disease which never existed in the world. Introduction of this fake disease in the laboratory report prepared by Dr. Nazeer Kalhoro actually created a havoc in the society. In addition to that statements of other two persons of Sindh Government i.e. Mr. Abid Ali Shah (the then Secretary Livestock and Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh) and Dr. Pervaiz Imrani who found mention in the said report but their statements were not directly recorded by the Investigating Officer, which fact also creates doubts upon the credibility of the instant FIA report and conduct of the I.O. Whereas, Federal Government.
Employees including the respondent No.4 have been falsely implicated by the I.O. In the matter.
Learned counsel further contended that when even the Divisional Bench of Sindh High Court had no option except to order disposing of the sheep, then how action of the Federal Government can be declared mala fide. Learned counsel argued that in the instant matter, only aggrieved party is the Importer/respondent No.6, who after order of culling could file appeal to the Federal Government under section 14 of the Animal Quarantine Act, 1979 which he did not. Even the remedy of filing writ petition under extreme emergent circumstances i.e. Writ Petition preferred in shape of Writ Petition No.3329 of 2012 at Sindh High Court at Karachi, was withdrawn, whereas, petitioner under any stretch of imagination was not an aggrieved person, hence, instant petition on this score alone is liable to be dismissed. Body of the writ petition also reflects that the same was not to serve any painful aspect on the part of nation but to malign his official colleagues due to personal grudge.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 argued that respondent No.5 was responsible for issuance of Provisional Release Order and then the final Release order after the expiry of quarantine period, accordingly he issued the Provisional Release order of the said live animals on 4-9-2012 for shifting the animals to Government Quarantine House but the said order was reviewed by Dr. Ehsan-ul- Haq, the then Director, Animal Quarantine Department by ordering shifting the said animals to the premises of P.K. Livestock and Meat Company, District Malir, Karachi, on the ground that the space was not enough for 21000 animals in the Government Quarantine House and how could respondent No.5 disagree with a genuine reasoning given by his superior officer? However, Animal Quarantine Act, 1979, also provides that Quarantine Officer cannot be made responsible for all the acts relating to import of sheep. In addition to that Director, AQD, had assigned the duty of supervision, observation and conduct test/examination to Dr. Arif Saleem Memon, vide letter No.F- 5-9/86-AQD(760) dated 4-9-2012. The FIA report fails to give the relevant provision of law which can substantiate the allegations levelled against the respondent No.5 in the said report. Further, there were no powers vested with the respondent No.5 to stop or interfere in any action of the Government of Sindh. Learned Counsel responding to the allegations levelled against the respondent No.5 in the FIA Report argued that he culling/destruction of the sheep was ordered by Secretary, National Food Security, and Research on the advice of respondent No.4, whereas, respondent No.5 had nothing to do with the culling of the sheep, who had thought the animals to be diseased, otherwise he had the power under Rule 6(2) of the above said Act to order the destruction of imported diseased animal. Moreover, the fact that despite having powers to call for culling, respondent No.5 not doing so proved that he did not agree that the animals were diseased, whereas, order regarding culling of sheep was communicated by the Secretary, Livestock and Fisheries Department, Government of Sindh to Director, Animal Quarantine Department, Karachi and respondent No.5 being subordinate to him had no authority to stop his head of Department.
Learned counsel lastly contended that the report of Principal right Institute, UK was filed in the Sindh High Court Karachi which was never forwarded/communicated to respondent No.5, then how he could have acted on the basis of a report which was subjudice before the Court and not communicated to him.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 referred the following facts found out in the inquiry report submitted by the FIA:--- ' On 10-9-2012 a letter was written from Quarantine Officer (Import) to the Director Animal Quarantine Office, Karachi that all animals are healthy and not suffering from any schedule diseases. It was further mentioned in the said letter that the subject animals will be slaughtered and meat will be exported to Iran and other countries and no, animal will be sold live or carcurs in local market. Request of the Importer/respondent No.6 was allowed to keep the subject animals in their own premises which was approved for holding animal for antemortem and Quarantine purpose on the ground as there was no sufficient space available in Quarantine Department, National Highway Karachi, further due to avoid loss to the regular export of live animal.
' The test results from first sample drawn by NVL Islamabad were negative; The test results from first sample drawn by Sindh Poultry Vaccine Center showed positive for some diseases; ' First sample drawn by Elisa Laboratory Tando Jam, showed three serum samples (III Serum samples 457, 458 and 475) out of sixty seven were found positive Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Non structural protein (NSP); ' Same samples were sent to NVL Islamabad and on 13-9-2012, NVL wrote to Central veterinary diagnostic Laboratory Tando Jam that out of sixty seven samples forty six samples were leaked and sample Nos.457, 458 and 475) were among them; ' Subsequently on 16-9-2012 Syed Abid Ali Shah, Secretary Livestock and Fisheries Department to the Government of Sindh wrote a letter to Director Animal Quarantine Department, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Food and Security, Karachi mentioning wherein that ORF is a viral disease, which is zoonotic in nature and presence of these animals on their soil is not only dangerous to transport usual disease of FMD and other Bacterial diseases, but may bring new virus like ORF which is not available in country so far and thus hazardous situation, therefore, for animal and human life has to be plugged at once and it is imperative that this consignment has to be destroyed immediately in best interest of public without loss of further time; ' Same statement was given by Dr. Nazir Hussain Kalhoro, in the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in C.P.
No.3329 of 2012 and such misleading statement was given by Dr. Nazir Hussain Kalhoro before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh, caused anxiety not only with the Bench as well as throughout the country. Said Statement was highly misleading as Scabby Mouth (ORF) disease is common element in sheep in Pakistan and is of such low significance that it has not been notified as a disease in OIE.
' On 16th September, 2012, (Sunday) respondent No.4 directed the Director, Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Animal Quarantine Department to handover the subject sheep to Secretary, Livestock and Fisheries to Government of Sindh and on the same day he also wrote a letter to Secretary, Livestockand Fisheries Department Government of Sindh, mentioning that the animal Quarantine Department will cooperate with the Government of Sindh.
' Learned Counsel submitted that Dr. Khurshid Ahmed/respondent No.4 at that time was Principal Scientist Officer at NVL, Islamabad and he himself signed the test reports, wherein no disease was found in the said sheep. Moreover, all the communication took place on a public holiday. Learned counsel contended that order of respondent No.4 was not only illogical but also illegal because as per section 10 of the Pakistan Animal Quarantine (Import and Export of Animals and Animal Products) Ordinance, 1979, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Quarantine Officer under this Ordinance may apply for revision to the Federal Government within thirty days from the date of issue of such order and the decision of the Federal Government in this regard shall be final.
Moreover, Federal Government may, on the receipt of an application under subsection (1) stay the operation of the order of Quarantine Officer till the disposal of the application, whereas, in the instant case no such time was given to the respondent No.6 and even for the sake of arguments if at all the subject consignment as alleged had some disease which was injurious to humans, it could only be destroyed by Federal Government Animal Quarantine Department under section 6 of the Ordinance and by no means it could have been handed over to Provincial Government.
Learned Counsel pointed out that during the Court proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh at Karachi administration malafidely lodged a false and frivolous F.I.R. Against the respondent No.6 for which restraining order was obtained from the High Court of Sindh, vide order dated 19-9-2012 and later on the investigation officer recommended C. Class of said F.I.R. Moreover, upon conflicting reports from the Laboratories of Sindh and NVL Islamabad, Hon'ble High Court of Sindh sent blood samples to Pribright Institute of Lab in UK from where it was declared that the subject consignment had no such Blue Tongue virus, PPI virus and FMD virus and it was fit for human consumption. But, after receipt of report from UK Lab, due to some compelling circumstances, respondent No.6 had to withdraw the petition, however, subsequently Sindh Government again intervened and destroyed the whole consignment despite the fact that they were declared disease free from UK Lab. Learned Counsel while referring to the Inquiry Report submitted by FIA as a result of inquiry conducted by the orders of Prime Minister of Pakistan, argued that the same also concluded that the CVDL Lab Tando Jam and Sindh Poultry Vaccine Centre were not capable of conducting such test on sheep and further more that not a single witness has mentioned that the sheep were unfit for human consumption. Learned counsel stated that regarding petitioner statement of Dr. Rafiq -ul-Hassan Usmani is on the record of Inquiry Report and a notification dated 21-5-2012 was also issued whereby petitioner was demoted and charges of in efficiency, misconduct and corruption were proved against him. Regarding the status of intervener learned counsel submitted that despite the fact he had no nexus with the whole matter, soon after the culling of subject sheep, he started writing in the daily news paper namely Daily Dawn impersonating himself as a spokesman of Government of Pakistan. Moreover, Intervener in his letter dated 25-11-2012, printed in Daily Dawn as reply to the Australian High Commission's letter printed on 1st November, 2012 in Daily Dawn, has clearly written (Pakistan Government View), whereas, he was never authorized by the Government of Pakistan to give his personal view on behalf of Government of Pakistan thus he not only misused his official position as a Government Servant but also tried to give a wrong impression to the whole world for which an action should be taken against him according to Service Rules. Also a criminal case be registered against him for impersonation. Learned counsel lastly contended that respondent No.6 has suffered badly in terms of monitory loss as well as his reputation for which he should be compensated and all those who misused their official positions including the intervener as well as petitioner should be given exemplary punishment.
7. Dr. Alamdar Hussain Malik, Former Registrar, Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC), who on his written request, was later on impleaded as Respondent No.9, appearing in person submitted that the Australian Quarantine Inspection service department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Australia on 1st September, 2012 issued the Health Certificate bearing No.612-000891 under the signature of the authorized officer Dr. B.J. Graham for same 22000 sheep which left Australia on 4- 8-2012 for Bahrain against the Clause 2.53 of the Export Control (Animal) Order, 2004, whereas, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection service had already issued the Health Certificate for the 22000 sheep for export to Bahrain, but the Health certificate issued for the same 22000 sheep on 1st September, 2012 reflects that the said sheep had been destined for Pakistan and there is no mention that these sheep had already left Australia on 4-8-2012 for Bahrain and was an, attempt to camouflage all the previous history of the sheep. Moreover, no provision in Export Control (Animals) Order, 2004, allows issuance of a Health Certificate for disputed/rejected consignment by the importing country, therefore, the act of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to issue the Health Certificate on 1-9-2012 was itself the defeat to their own Export Control (Animals)
Order, 2004. While referring parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.9 stated that said respondents before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court in Petition No.C.P.No.D-3329 of 2012 declared that the Animal Health Certificate accompanying the consignment which was presented by the Master of ship to Pakistani Quarantine Officers at Port Qasim Karachi was suspected to be fake and bogus which observation is also based on the facts that the Health Certificate is signed by the authorized Australian Veterinary Officer (Mr. B.J.
Graham) on 1-9-2012 at Perth Australia, whereas, the ship carrying the sheep had left Australia on 4-8-2012. Moreover, signature of Dr. B.J. Graham appearing on the Health Certificate presented to Quarantine Officer at Karachi does not match with his signatures on similar certificates provided to the Quarantine Officers of Oman and Qatar. Same fact was also found out in the Investigation Report submitted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia, pertaining to the consignment of sheep exported by Wellard Rural Exports (respondent No.7) to Pakistan. On 4- 8-2012 licensed exporter Wellard Rural Exporters Pvt. Ltd. (Wellard) exported a consignment of approximately 75,000 sheep destined for Oman, Qatar and Bahrain on-board the vessel Ocean Drover. Following the discharge of part of this consignment in Oman and, Qatar, the Ocean Drover sailed to Bahrain and arrived at Manama Port on 21st August, 2012, an initial livestock inspection of the sheep was conducted and on 22nd August, 2012 Vessel was requested to vacate pending formal permission to discharge the sheep. The issue remained with the Kingdom of Bahrain of Municipalize and Agriculture Affairs and finally it was resolved on 30th August, 2012 that:---
(a) Any sheep proven to be infected with any of the contagious diseases shall not be allowed entry and shall be disposed of on board the ship;
(b) The sheep which is not infected shall be allowed entry after taking precautionary veterinary measures on board the ship prior to disembarking it, in accordance with the approved veterinary measures;
(c) In closing, we kindly request that you take the necessary measures towards the above mentioned, and that you liaise with the Quarantine and Veterinary Control section in the Agriculture Affairs, in relation to the consignment referred above.
' Instead of implementing the above said decision dated 30th August, 2012 of the Bahrain Authority the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service issued another Health Certificate on 1-9-2012 and diverted the consignment to Port Qasim, Karachi, Pakistan. From the record it is also clear that the Bahrain Authorities found scabby mouth disease in the sheep on 22-8-2012 thus did not allow unloading of the sheep, whereas, respondent No.6 on the same day requested the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for the permission to import 22000 sheep from Australia concealing the history of the sheep that they had left Australia on 4-8-2012 for Bahrain and pretended that this NOC was required for the direct import from Australia. Moreover, respondent No,6 in Petition No,3329 of 2012 before Hon'ble Sindh High Court clearly mentioned that when a commercial dispute arose between the exporter and the importer in Bahrain then the exporter contacted the respondent No,6 for the deal which the respondent No,6 accepted and same stance was reiterated by the respondent No,6 in his para wise comments submitted in the instant case, so the act of the respondent No,6 not disclosing the history of the sheep to the respondents Nos.2 to 3 which is concealment of facts to the highest level of the functionaries of the Government of Pakistan. It is further averred that the Bill of Lading dated 4-8-2012, issued in favour of respondent No,6 is a complete mystery because it is documented by the record of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of Australia, the respondents Nos.6 and 7, whereas, originally there was no consignment of sheep booked/destined for Karachi, Pakistan then how can a Bill of Lading dated 4-8-2012 was issued in favour of respondent No,6? Moreover, it is visible from the record that approximately 75000 sheep were destined for Oman, Doha and Bahrain on 4-8-2012 by the Vessel Ocean Drover, therefore, the above said Bill of Lading dated 4-8-2012 in favour of respondent No,6 leaves a big question mark on its credibility and other very important point which also emerged was that the said Bill of Lading indicated that total number of sheep were 21000, whereas, the health certificate issued on 1-9-2012 reflected the total number of sheep as 22000 which was not possible because the health certificates under section 2.53 of the Export Control (Animals) Order, 2004 was supposed to be issued just prior to the loading of the sheep commenced. In addition that Committee constituted by the respondent No,4 counted the sheep as 20468, which reflects that all the documents were prepared in isolation. Further Commercial Invoice in respect of the said shipment was issued on 1- 9-2012 and issuance of Bill of Lading 27 days prior to the issuance of the commercial invoice on 4- 8-2012 was practically not possible. All these facts were required to be looked into by the respondent No,5 as well as Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Director Animal Quarantine Department Karachi, who jointly inspected and verified the Health Certificate, Bill of Lading and Mortality Statement by the Mater of Ship Ocean Drover, and even if the history of the sheep was concealed from them they had to apply their individual mind and their failure to do so became the sole reason to allow offloading of the sheep which earned bad name for the Pakistan in the international society.
Moreover, report dated 5-10-2012 submitted by the convener of the Inquiry Committee Dr. Muhammad Ilyas to respondents Nos.2 and 4, also highlighted all the misleading information, concealments and violations of the quarantine laws/rules by all the concerned leaving no ambiguity. Respondent No,9 further added that Syed Abid Ali Shah, Ex-Secretary, Livestock Sindh, vide letter No,PS/SECY/L&F/I. S/2012/23 issued on 16-9-2012 (Sunday) addressed to the Director, Animal Quarantine Department Government of Pakistan, Ministry of National Food and Security, Karachi, requested that keeping in view the rejection of consignment by the Bahrain Government and according to reports of two provincial laboratories, to take legal and lawful action in the matter and destroy the sheep which were at their temporary quarantine facility, in order to ensure safeguard of human health and livestock population. Letter was handed over to Dr. Ehsan Ul Haq, then Director, Animal Quarantine Department Karachi who forwarded the same to respondent No,4 on the same day. On the same day respondent No,4, vide his letter No,Dy.1601/AHC-2012 dated 16- 9-2012, conveyed the approval of respondent No,2 for destruction of the sheep in public interest in merciful manner without delay. It is further contended that the recommendation of Secretary, Livestock, Government of Sindh for destruction of the sheep on the basis of report of two provincial laboratories i,e, Central Veterinary Diagnostic Lab Tendo Jam and Sindh Poultry Vaccine Centre, Karachi, even in the presence of Report of the National Veterinary Laboratory, Islamabad already declaring the imported sheep healthy, was unprecedented. Furthermore, respondent No,?, vide letter No,7-17/2012-Admn-1 (AQD) dated 25-10-2012, which was issued under the signature of JS-I directed the then Animal Husbandry Commissioner/respondent No,4 to blacklist Messrs Pak Livestock and Meat Company, Karachi as well as Australian Exporting Company Wellard Rural Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. For any future import and export of live animals to Pakistan as well as to issue a complete brief on the issue so that the Australian Government could be requested to investigate the genuineness of Animal Health Certificate accompanying the consignment which was presented by the Master of Ship (MV Ocean Drover) to Pakistani Quarantine Officers at Port Qasim, Karachi, on 4-9-2012, whereas, in deviation from the said direction, no action was taken further to take up the matter with the Australian authorities. Rather after the lapse of almost one year, respondent No,3, on the direction of respondent No,2, requested Secretary, M/o Commerce, Government of Pakistan in this regard, vide letter No,7-17/2012-Admn-I dated 6-8-2013. Finally commenting on the FIA Report on the subject, respondent No,9 submitted that same lacks any finding regarding concealment of facts by the respondents Nos.6 and 7 by not disclosing the history of the consignment of the sheep to the highest functionary of the Government of Pakistan, how the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Australia issued the Health Certificate on 1-9-2012 in violation of provisions of Export Control (Animals) Order, 2004 amendment up to Export Control (Animals) Amendment Order No,2012 as well as why the consignment of sheep was not allowed to offload at Port of Bahrain while the documents were available.
8. Learned D.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.2 and 3 endorsed the arguments of respondents Nos.4 and 5 and submitted that certain allegations have been levelled against the above said respondents and Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, who is not a respondent, in the inquiry report submitted by FIA, however, learned D.A.-G. Request for directions regarding conducting a departmental inquiry against the aforesaid three officers under the Government Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1973, to further clarify the position at departmental level.
9. Arguments heard, record perused.
10. The petitioner Dr. Rana Muhammad Akhlaq who is also Deputy Animal Husbandry Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as DAHC) at Ministry of National Food Security and Research (Live Stock Wing), Government of Pakistan, Islamabad has filed the instant petition, alleging therein that since the respondents Nos.2 to 6 have been the main source of bringing bad name to the country and causing huge financial loss to the national exchequer due to their corrupt and malpractices with regard to food security, export and import of livestock, hence they are liable to be proceeded against. Since a direction was also sought to get the matter investigated through FIA, it was allowed to be impleaded as respondent No,8 with the direction to hold inquiry into the allegations contained in the petition. The respondents were also directed to file their report and parawise comments. In the meanwhile, an intervener namely Alamdar Hussain Malik, former Secretary/Registrar, Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC) came forward for impleadment as respondent No,9. He was allowed as such in the public interest. The respondents have submitted their report and parawise comments denying the allegations so levelled, except the respondents Nos.3, 6 and 7 who despite notices have not arranged their representations before this Court for the reasons best known to them. The concerned official of FIA has also submitted his inquiry report dated 15-11-2013 on the contentions raised by the petitioner under para.4 of the writ petition.
11. A bare reading of the documents attached with the writ petition, the inquiry conducted by FIA and the comments filed by the aforesaid respondents including the respondents Nos.4 and 6, particularly that of the respondent No,9 i,e, the intervener reveals that none of them has been able to substantially contravene the said contentions of the petitioner. It will therefore, be in the fitness of the things to reproduce hereunder the said contentions so raised under para 4 of the writ petition:--- "That due to ill designs, ulterior motives, corrupt and malpractices of the respondents Nos.2 to 4, inter alia, the following illegal, unlawful and irregular incidents have taken place with regard to food security and export and import of livestock of the country which have not only put the public health at stake but have also evolved a culture of corruption, corrupt and malpractices, favouritism, arbitrariness and discriminatory treatment in the country having caused huge financial loss to the national exchequer and bringing bad name to the country of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which needs judicial review by this honourable Court:
(a) The respondent No,4 while posted as Animal Husbandry Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as AHC), had illegally and in a very haste manner without adopting due process of law permitted the respondent No,6 to import 21,000 live diseased sheep from Australia through respondent No,7 in the month of September, 2012. The said consignment was, in fact, rejected by Bahrain authorities due to health reasons but as a result of connivance of the said respondents Nos.3 to 6 with each other, the respondent No,7 was able to divert the sheep towards Pakistan where the sheep were unloaded without inspection by the respondent No,5 at Port Qasim, Karachi on 4-9-2012 as required under Rule No,5 of the Animal Quarantine (Import and Export Animals and Animal Products) Rules, 1980 duly made by the Federal Government under section 14 of the Pakistan Animal Quarantine (Import and Export of Animals and Animal Products) Ordinance, 1979 and were shifted to the Slaughter House maintained by the respondent No,6 and the Meat Company (Pvt.)
Limited Musa Goat Razzakabad, Karachi without keeping them in the Quarantine House, Karachi established by the government for test and examination for a certain period as per Rules Nos.7, 8 and 9 of the aforesaid Rules. The matter was since reported in the national and international press, hence the authorities concerned had taken samples for examination in the relevant laboratories and the same were found positive.
' The respondent No,2 had, therefore, no other option except to order an inquiry through the Inquiry Committee comprising five members mentioned in the letter dated 11-9-2012 (Annexure A). The inquiry was conducted into the matter which duly established the following violations vide Inquiry Report (Annexure-B):--- ' The said live diseased sheep were originally booked for Bahrain and the ship carrying the same had started it journey on 4-8-2012.
(ii) Upon rejection of the consignment by the Bahrain authorities for health reasons, the ship was diverted to Pakistan.
(iii) The respondent No,2, in a very haste manner due to the reasons best known to him, had prompted to issue NOC in the name of respondent No,6 to import the said diseased sheep to Pakistan on 24-8-2012.
(iv) The importers clearing agent informed on 3-9-2012 that the ship loaded with sheep for Pakistan would arrive on 4-9-2012.
(v) The respondent No,5, i,e, The Quarantine Officer who was obliged under Rule No,5 supra to inspect the sheep on the boat and to examine the certificates of health and other relevant documents, failed to perform his duties.
(vi) The sheep were not brought to the Quarantine House to keep there for the prescribed period in order to conduct test and examination thereof but were straightly shifted to the 'aforesaid Slaughter House of the respondent No,6 illegally and without lawful authority.
' The Government of Sindh requested the Director, Animal Quarantine Department, Government of Pakistan vide letter dated 16-9-2012 (Annexure-C) to destroy the sheep in view of the aforesaid positive report of the laboratories. Consequently, the order was passed as such. The respondent No,6 assailed the order of destroying the said sheep before the Sindh High Court and obtained stay order but ultimately the said writ petition was disposed of and as a consequence thereof, the sheep were destroyed.
' In the meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Pakistan also pleased to direct the Government of Sindh to hold an inquiry into the matter vide letter dated 17-9-2012 (Annexure-D). The Government of Sindh also issued a letter dated 28-9-2012 (Annexure-E) to the Fed. Of Pakistan for urgent inquiry and report within two days. The matter seems to have been confused for ordering different inquiries.
' The fact remains that the respondent No,2 vide letter dated 25-10-2012 (Annexure-F) as a consequence of the recommendations of the inquiry pleased to direct the respondent No,4 to blacklist the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 and to furnish a complete brief to the Australian Government along with taking necessary actions for implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry in letter and spirit. Subsequently a reminder dated 20-11-2012 (Annexure-G) was also issued to him but he failed to take any action in this behalf.
' Since all the respondents Nos.2 to 7 were equally involved in the incident, hence it was mandatory upon the respondent No,1 to take action against them by adopting the codal formalities but matter was deliberately subjected to bureaucratic red tape and frivolous correspondence just for public eyewash.
(b) Section 3 of the Ordinance supra empowers the Federal Government to regulate import and export of the animals and animal products subject to reasonable restrictions/conditions read with Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the aforesaid rules. In pursuance whereof ECC constituted by the Federal Government formulated a policy dated 3-3-2009, which was duly approved by the Federal Cabinet where under it was specifically provided that there would be no quota regime for specific areas. The said policy was duly circulated amongst all concerned. However, in utter deviation therefrom, the respondents Nos.2 and 4 pleased to allocate quota for different stations in the year 2012 on quarterly basis which was circulated vide letter dated 2-3-2012 (Annexure-H). They further deviated to revise the allocation of quota for the second quarter vide letter dated 25-5-2012 (Annexure-I). The animal and meat import and export of Pakistan raised serious objections regarding violation of the aforesaid policy guidelines issued by ECC vide their letter dated 9-4-2012 (Annexure-J). The Federal Minister concerned pleased to restrain further export during third quarter of 2012 vide letter dated 9-7-2012 with immediate effect (Annexure-K), the said letter was superceded by the letter dated 10-7-2012 (Annexure-L) which was withdrawn on 27-8-2012 (Annexure-M) implemented by the respondent No,4 vide letter dated 3-9-2012 (Annex-N). What appears from the said day to day change of stand on the subject and that too in utter deviation from the uniform policy is that all the decisions were being taken under extraordinary influence for illegal gains and gratifications which rapidly developed and promoted a culture of favoritism and discrimination in glaring violation of Articles 4, 5, 9, 14, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. Thus, the principles of fair play, equal treatment and transparency were ousted from the governance. .(c) Similarly, a good number of animals were illegally allowed for export from Islamabad to Afghanistan via Turkhum border by respondent No,3 since Islamabad Quarantine is meant for Islamabad Airport only. Neither they were kept under the quarantine house as required under the aforesaid rules nor was the other laid down procedure followed. Even a huge number of animals which were meant to be exported from other stations were ordered to be exported to Afghanistan via Peshawar-Torkham. This unlawful activity was carried out for only personal gains, which opened the doors of corruption and smuggling of animals. In this regard, the then 1G FC, Balochistan had written a letter dated 4-6-2009 (Annex-0) to all concerned but no proper action is seen to have been taken by the competent authorities in this behalf.
(d) The casual attitude of the respondent No,4 while serving as AHC is evident from para 189 of the Note Sheet dated 20-4-2011 (Annexure-P), whereby he proposed to revalidate the quarantine house at Jogian GT Road Peshawar through the owner of the plot who had already stood expired.
The sad demise of the owner was pointed out by the Secretary concerned by noting thereon under para 191 as under:--- "How a rent agreement was made with a dead man?"
' The irony is that no action whatsoever was eventually taken by the respondent No,1 notwithstanding the crystal clear position regarding inefficiency and misconduct committed by the respondent No,4 which otherwise amounts to an offence under the law."
The case was fixed for arguments time and again but due to unavailability of the counsels from different sides, the hearing could not take place. However, for convenience of the learned counsel for the respondent No,6 who had to travel from Karachi to Islamabad to attend this case all the parties agreed to submit their written arguments and it was so done accordingly.
12. I have carefully gone through the written arguments, relevant record including the inquiry report submitted by FIA and the documents placed by all the parties on the record. The issues raised by the petitioner need to be point-wise discussed as paras.
13. The first issue pertains to import of Australian sheep by the respondent No,6. This issue is further divisible into three points: (a) As to whether the said import was valid and legal? (b) As to whether no NOC was required for import of the said sheep? (c) As to whether the said sheep were suffering from any disease or infection whatsoever?
(a) As regards the first point, there is no dispute between the parties that the said consignment was to be offloaded at Bahrain but at the same time there is no documentary evidence available on record which could show the exact reason for its rejection from there. It is admitted position that respondent No,6 had applied for NOC for import of the said sheep to Pakistan vide his request dated 22-8-2012. The said request was allowed on 24-8-2012 when the respondent No,4 was holding the post of Animal Husbandry Commissioner under the control of the respondent No,2.
None of the respondents has been able to deny the fact that the said ship/vessel had started it's journey from Bahrain towards Pakistan on 23-8-2012 when no such like permission was on the surface. The said movement could not have been possible without connivance of the respondents Nos.4, 6 and 7 with each other. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that under the law no such provision is available to accept a consignment which has not been directly routed from the exporting country. If the consignment was rejected by the Bahrain Government, it should have been returned to Australia. It could not be diverted to Pakistan unless the NOC; health certificate; commercial invoice and bill of lading were issued prior to loading of the animals/sheep in the vessel and that too directly in the name of Pakistani importer. I am also in agreement with the respondent No,9 i,e, the intervener that the three important documents which ought to have been issued in the name of the respondent No,6 from Australia prior to loading of the sheep in the vessel/ship therefrom, i,e, the health certificate, commercial invoice and the bill of lading are shown by the respondent No,6 to have been issued on 1-9-2012 and 4-8-2012 respectively. As far as health certificate is concerned, importer took the plea that there were at least 4 Veterinary Doctors on board the ship, after leaving Bahrain, who again examined the sheep and sent their reports to the Australian Authorities who in return issued a fresh medical certificate for export to Pakistan. But it is a factual controversy which cannot be looked into by this Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction.
However, medical examination report received from Pirbright Institute, UK proved medical certificate of Australian Authorities ultimately to be correct.. As regards the bill of lading dated 4-8- 2012, the same seems to be a fake document, as the shipment was not originally meant for Pakistan. It is astonishing to note as to how a bill of lading was issued on 4-8-2012 when all the respondents including the respondent No,6 duly admit that the ship was diverted froth Bahrain to Pakistan upon its refusal therefrom and NOC was issued on 24-8-2012 by the respondent No,4 and no question of issuing bill of lading prior to issuance of NOC would arise in the circumstances. The very document is, therefore, maneuvered subsequently by the respondent No,6 who is liable to be Prosecuted for the said fabrication and using the said two documents, including the respondents Nos.4 and 5 who accepted the same.
(b) The second point is about requirement of NOC for import of the said sheep. The case of the Petitioner is that the said sheep could not have been imported without the requisite NOC. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred section 3 of the Pakistan Animal Quarantine (Import and Export of Animal Products) Ordinance, 1979. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 6 are of the view that under the prevailing policy of the Federal Government, there is no requirement of issuance of NOC for the purpose. The respondent No,9 in person has also supported the point of view advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the addition that the respondent No,6 while submitting a request for obtaining the said NOC, had concealed the fact that the said consignment had already stood rejected by the Bahrain authorities. A bare reading of the section 3 supra specifically provides not only to regulate and prohibit import and export of animals but it lays certain conditions therefore under subsections (2) and (3) of the said Act, which explicitly establishes the said requirement. However, if there was any policy not requiring NOC for the said import, the same could not override the said section 3 instead the said policy would be treated as void and ultra vires of the said legal provisions. Contention of the respondents Nos.4 and 6 that no NOC was required for import of the said sheep to Pakistan is also belied by their own conduct as the respondent No,6 himself applied therefor and the =respondent No,4 issued the NOC without fulfilling the codal formalities. Had it not been required, the same would not have been applied for. Once it is applied for, it should not have been issued without adopting due process of law and fulfilment of the prerequisites contained in the NOC itself.
However, even if the history of the sheep was concealed from respondent No,5 as well as Dr. Ehsan- ul-Haq, Director Animal Quarantine Department Karachi, who jointly inspected and verified the Health Certificate, Bill of Lading and Mortality Statement by the Master of Ship Ocean Drover, they had to apply their individual mind and their failure to do so became the sole reason to allow offloading of the sheep which earned bad name for the Pakistan in the international society. Both the respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6 are, therefore, held responsible for the said illegal act and irregularities committed in this respect.
(c) The third point regarding issue No,1 is about disease of the said sheep. In this regard, it has been found out from the record that a team of Veterinary experts from National Veterinary Lab (FAO-FMD Project) Islamabad, collected blood samples from 111 sheep which were tested for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and for PPR disease, all samples tested Negative, but on the same day some officials from Sindh Livestock Department travelling beyond their jurisdiction also collected some samples from the Quarantined sheep which were taken to Sindh Poultry Vaccine Centre (SPVC)
Karachi and Central Veterinary Diagnostic lab (CVDL) Tandojam Hyderabad. Both these labs gave positive results for the following diseases:- a. Foot and mouth disease (FMD); b. E.Coli; c. Salmonella; d. Actinnomyces ovis; . Actinnomyces Bovis.
' An important fact which has been found out is that Australia is officially free from Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) since, 1871 regarding which Animal Husbandry Commissioner Dr. Khursheed himself wrote in his file noting dated 13-5-2013 that detection of the said disease was not possible and might be detected in Central Veterinary Diagnostic Lab Tandojam due to system error in the equipment at the time of performance of test. Moreover, according to experts mere presence of E.Coli and Salmonnela is not dangerous as it is always present in gut flora of sheep and goats.
Moreover, no disease of the name Actinnomyces Ovis exists and there is only Actinnomyces Bovis which exists only in cattle. Later, on 18th September, 2012 on the orders of Sindh High Court fresh samples were sent to the three labs again as a result whereof contradictory reports surfaced due to which learned Division bench of Lahore High Court formed a Committee headed by Dr. Rafiq Khanani Professor and Head of Pathology Department with the mandate to go to the premises of petitioner where the said consignment was placed and check if no clinical signs of any disease is found then to stop the culling of animals. The Committee on 22-9-2012 suggested that as no sick animal for Anthrax has been found, therefore, until and unless there is any concrete evidence of Anthrax disease, the culling does not appear to be justified. However, one Member Dr. Nazeer.
Kalhoro Director Sindh Poultry Vaccine Centre differed with the method detection of Anthrax.
Submitted that "Since, no suspected sick animal for Anthrax the Committee report of the National veterinary Lab Islamabad was in negative. Ultimately, in order to resolve the controversy learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court decided to carry out screening/testing through some independent foreign laboratory and samples were sent to Pirbright Institute U.K for the purpose.
Results were directly sent to the Sindh High Court which were opened on 17-9-2012 in the open Court and were found to be in negative with regard to Blue Tongue Virus, PPR Virus and FMD Virus, whereas, animals were positive for some normal bacterial species such as E.Coli etc. Which is not considered a fatal infection of sheep or humans. However, before passing of any order by the learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court Petition was astonishingly withdrawn by the respondent No,6. Another important fact which creates doubt about the presence of any fatal disease in the sheep was that on the arrival of the ship Director AQD and the Quarantine Officer who are veterinary experts of Federal Government stationed at. Karachi carried out joint inspection of animals and found the same to be healthy and not suffering from any disease as well as not showing any symptoms of any schedule diseases. Moreover, in all cases their observation and the Medical Reports from National Veterinary. Lab, Islamabad are treated as final assessment but in the instant case not only the Sindh Livestock Department and Sindh Laboratories unauthorisedly jumped in but the same Director AQD and Quarantine Officer lost their opinion. Moreover, medical reports of National Veterinary Lab, Islamabad which is a National Reference Lab, and the most hi- tech lab for diagnosis of veterinary related diseases of Pakistan were ignored, whereas, report of a Poultry Vaccine Centre having expertise in Poultry and CVDK Tandojam having no facility for carrying out tests of sheep, both subservient and inferior in quality to National Veterinary Lab, Islamabad were declared more authentic and on the basis of same sheep were killed. In the whole episode role of Syed Abid Ali Shah, Secretary Livestock, Government of Sindh remained very suspicious who on 16th September, 2012, wrote to Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq, Director Animal Quarantine Department (AQD), recommending immediate destroying of the sheep as being infected by different diseases as declared by Sindh Labs which were denied by all other labs. Said official also mentioned that the sheep may bring new virus like ORE, which is not available in the country so far and also made the same statement before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court on first day of hearing, whereas, ORF is another name of Scabby Mouth Disease which is a minor ailment of sheep, very common in Pakistan and is not even notified as a disease of significance in the list of World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) listed diseases. Another important factor which strengthens the fact of non-existence of any fatal disease in the sheep is that the inquiry officer visited the area where the slaughter house of the respondent No,6 is situated and came across a person who on condition of anonymity showed him 7/8 Australian Maarino sheep which he had captured during the culling operation and amazingly the sheep were completely healthy even after one year.
' Apart from what has been said above there is no documentary evidence available on record to show that the said consignment was rejected by the Bahrain authorities due to some disease in the sheep as in that case WORLD ALERT would have been issued by the Bahrain Authorities as per practice prevailed in the international animal trade so that no further trade in the animal from the said geographical area be carried out, but there is not a single document of Bahrain Government available anywhere which could grove that Bahrain government rejected the sheep due to infected by some disease except speculated media reports which were only based on hearsay.
' In this view of the matter, I declare the whole process of culling of sheep as unlawful, fruit of a poisonous tree and result of mala fide on behalf of official of Sindh Government against respondent No,6. Moreover, it is also quite evident from the record that the respondent No,6 was continuously harassed by the officials of Sindh Government through different tactics to not pursue the petition before the Sindh High Court which resulted into withdrawal of the same by the respondent No,6 just one day before the announcement of order by the learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble Sindh High Court.
14. The second issue is regarding the quota regime. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that as per decision/ policy of the Economic Coordination Council (ECC), dated 3-3-2009 which was also duly approved by the Federal Cabinet, where-under it was specifically provided that there would be no quota regime for specific area. The said policy/decision was duly supported by section 3 of the Ordinance supra. However, the learned counsel pointed out that notwithstanding, having circulated the said policy/decision, the respondents Nos.2 and 4 time and again have been deviating therefrom in order to accommodate certain Mafias for illegal gains. In further support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to the documents attached with the writ petition as (Annexures-H to N). None of the respondents have controverted the position that no quota is prescribed for specific areas, however, it is astonishing to note that the said position was deviated from vide letter dated 2-3-2012, whereby 'qubta was allocated for different stations. The said letter was further revised vide letter dated 25-5-2012 to reallocate the said quota for certain areas. The important thing to note is that the said position was not taken care of despite hue and cry raised by the association of the stakeholders. It is also important to note that on one hand, export of animals is stopped and immediately thereof, the said letter is withdrawn. It also goes unrebutted that the respondent No,3 has also remained involved in creating Artificial Quarantine Houses in order to accommodate those mafias who believe in illegal export of animals through unlawful means. As per established law and practices that the animals meant for export are liable to be kept in a Quarantine House for the purpose of medical test and examination. That Quarantine House should have been established at the nearest dry or airport. Otherwise, there are chances that the animals would be exported without undergoing the said medical test and examination. The conduct of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 also seems to be tainted from the fact that despite an important report furnished by I.-G. (FC) Balochistan, vide letter dated 4-6-2009, regarding smuggling of animals, no action was taken on the subject. The aforesaid unlawful practices raise serious doubts regarding the said transactions. One can easily understand as to how the foul is being played to accommodate certain groups and mafias. The office holders who have committed the said serious irregularities are, therefore, brought to book. I also direct the sitting Secretary and Animal Husbandry Commissioner to observe the law as well as the policy/guidelines on the subject in a transparent manner so as to avoid any cause of complaint.
15. The third question raised by the petitioner is regarding unlawful and passive attitude of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 which is evident from the fact that the respondent No,4 had allowed an agreement with an expired person for which the respondent No,2 had specifically raised a question vide note sheet dated 20-4-2011. The petitioner has also complained that since he has been reminding his superior officers i,e, the sitting AHCs to follow the rule and the law on the subject and for that very reason, they made the petitioner to sit in the office without any work. Even they pleased to direct the inferior officers not to route any file through the petitioner who is Deputy Animal Husbandry Commissioner and was holding the important position. The said position is also supported by the documents attached with the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has been unable to justify the said highly irresponsible official conduct of his client. To the extent of respondent No,3, I direct the respondent No,2 to take serious notice of the matter as such like persons who strive for rule of law are an asset for the nation. It is duty of their superiors to provide every legal support and protection to such like neglected but valuable persons. I also direct the sitting AHC to observe codal formalities in movement of official files.
16. The last contention of the petitioner is regarding appointment of respondent No,4 as Animal Husbandry Commissioner w,e,f, 9-2-2012 to 21-6-2013. No satisfactory response has been offered by the respondent No,4 on the subject. Although, FIA report has also supported the said appointment, yet it has not been answered as to how an officer of BS-19 was allowed to hold the post of BS-20 by the Secretary of the Ministry who was not the competent authority with particular reference to (2013 SCM R 1752). Under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, the competent authority for appointment against a post of BS-20 is the Prime Minister of Pakistan. If the post is contended to be looked after through acting/current charge the said procedure is also provided under rule 8(B) (4) and (5) of the said rules. Since the said procedure was also not followed, hence I do not hesitate to hold that the respondent No,4 did not hold the said post for the said period in the prescribed manner and he was, therefore, a usurper and he is ordered to refund the salaries and other monitory benefits drawn by him in this behalf as per law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Yasin v.
Federation of Pakistan reported as (PLD 2011 SC 132).
17. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby accept the writ petition and direct the respondent No,1 to take up the matter for initiating legal action against the respondents Nos.2 to 5 as per service and criminal laws. The respondents are also directed to submit compliance report through Registrar of this Court. Parties are left to bear their own cost.