' Haji Muhammad Sharif proprietor of Ttehad Cotton Factory, Rajanpur, District D. G. Khan has challenged order dated 22nd December, 1979 passed by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, D. G. Khan respondent No, 3 directing the petitioner to pay interest at the bank rate on the price of cotton weighing 65,994.5 Kilograms purchased by the petitioner from respondent No,
5. The aforementioned order was passed by respondent No, 2 while hearing appeal under paragraph 3 of Martial Law Order No, 318 against the decision given by the Extra Assistant Director (Extension)
Agriculture on 2nd December, 1979. Whereby he determined the price of cotton at the rate of Rs, 215 per maund. The above decision, was given by the Extra Assistant Director (Extension), Agriculture, Rajanpur under paragraph 2 of Martial Law Order No, 318 on a reference received by him from the Sub-Martial Law Administrator D. G. Khan. Respondent No 5 in his petition dated 28th November, 1979 which was submitted by him to the Extra Assistant Director (Extension) Agriculture, Rajanpur after the latter had received the reference from the Sub-Martial Law Administrator D. G. Khan stated that the petitioner was liable to pay the price of cotton purchased by him at the rate of Rs, 243.10 per maund as according to the terms of the agreement of the sale of cotton, the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs, 12 per maund over and above the maximum rate per maund of cotton prevalent in the market at the time of the sale which according to respondent No, I was Rs, 231.10 per maund as fixed by Khalipha Industries D. G. Khan. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that only a sum of Rs, 2,80,000 was due from him as the price of the cotton purchased by him from respondent No 5. The Extra 'Assistant Director (Extension);' Agriculture, Rajanpur, however, determined the price of the cotton at the rate of Rs, 215 per maund, which, according to him, was the maximum price paid by Noon Textile Mill on 25th January, 1972 to the sellers. Both the petitioner and respondent No, 5 filed appeals against the aforementioned decision of the Extra Assistant Director (Extension), Agriculture, Rajanpur, which as noticed above, were disposed of by the Deputy Director, Agriculture, D. G. Khan respondent No, 2 by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 1979.
2. The petitioner has contended that respondent No, 2 had no jurisdiction to order payment of interest on the price of cotton as there was no provision in Martial Law Order No, 318 under which interest could be awarded by him. The petitioner has submitted that the recovery of the amount of Rs, 61,027.04 on account of interest on the price of cotton from him as arrears of land revenue by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner has referred to Memo.
No, RB-30/238/79, dated 22nd September, 1980 of the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, D. G. Khan (Copy Annexure "K") to show that even the Commissioner had shown his inability to recover the aforementioned amount of interest from the petitioner as there was no provision in M. L.
0. No, 318 under which such interest could be awarded to the cotton grower against the buyer.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General has appeared on behalf of the Provincial Government to contest this writ petition. Respondent No, 5 =has also contested the writ petition and has filed a written statement.
4. I have heard the parties' counsel and have examined the documents placed by the petitioner on the file. Before examining the case on merits, it is necessary to consider the legal objection raised by the learned Assistant Advocate-General and the learned counsel for respondent No, 5, namely, whether this Court has jurisdiction to examine the validity of the impugned order which was passed by the Deputy Director, Agriculture respondent No, 2 in the exercise of power conferred on him under M. L.
0. No, 318.
5. Martial Law Order No, 318 which teals with the payment of dues to the cotton grower by the buyer, does not contain any specific provision regarding payment of interest by the buyer but the language.. Used in paragraph 2 of the Martial Law Order No, 318, which confers jurisdiction on the Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture to act as arbitrator in settling disputes arising between a grower and a purchaser of cotton, indicates that even the question of payment of interest by the purchaser to the cotton grower can be determined by the arbitrator as is evident from paragraph 2 of M. L.
0. 318 reproduced below "2. If any dispute arises between grower and such purchaser of cotton relating to the factum of sale or any matter arising out of such a transaction of sale as mentioned above it shall, within a period of seven days from the expiry of the aforementioned period of one month, be referable by either of the parties to arbitration by the Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension), of the area in which the grower resides and the Extra Assistant Director, of Agriculture (Extension) shall decide the dispute within a period of seven days."
The word "any matter arising out of such transaction of sale' would certainly include even a claim for interest by the cotton grower made by him against the purchaser. Since the question of payment of interest by the purchaser to cotton grower can be considered by the arbitrator under paragraph 2 of the M. L.
0. No, 318, the Deputy Director Agriculture who is an appellate authority can also consider this matter while deciding the appeal under paragraph 3 of M. L.
0. No, 318.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No, 5 had not made any claim for interest before the Extra Assistant Director of Agrkulture as is evident from his petition (Annexure "A/1)''. According to him respondent No, 5 had not made any such claim even in appeal before the Deputy Director Agriculture. The order for payment of interest was made by the Deputy Director, Agriculture suo motu for which there was no justification in law or in equity.
7. Learned Assistant Advocate-General and the learned counsel for respondent No, 6 have contended that the recovery of interest from the petitioner is being made in pursuance of order passed by 'the Deputy Director, Agriculture under paragraph 3 of M. L.O. No, 318, which empowers the Deputy Director Agriculture (Extension) to hear appeal against the decision of the Extra Assistant Director, Agriculture (Extension) and provides that the decision in appeal shall be final.
They have submitted that the validity of the order passed by the Deputy Director. Agriculture cannot be examined by this Court in view of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, which exclude the jurisdiction of this Court in such cases.
8. It has been noticed above that the appellate authority under paragraph 3 of M. L.
0. No, 318 will also be competent to consider all such matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator under paragraph 2 of the said M. L.
0. The question of payment of interest to the cotton grower by the purchaser if the formal dues are not paid within reasonable time can certainly be considered by the appellate authority also as this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator under paragraph 2 of the Martial Law Order No,
318. The question as to whether the appellate authority is justified in awarding interest to the cotton grower when he had not made any such claim before the arbitrator and had not put it forward formally before the appellate authority at the time of hearing of the appeal cannot be examined by this Court as it would amount to the examination of the validity of the order passed by the appellate authority under paragraph .3 of M. L.
0. No, 318 which is not possible in view of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The amount in question is being recovered from the petitioner by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 under the Deputy Martial Law Administrator Sector III as is evident from the endorsement on memorandum (Copy Annexure K). The view expressed by the Commissioner in the aforementioned memorandum was not followed by him in the subsequent letter addressed by him to the Deputy Commissioner, D. G. Khan as is evident from the memorandum of the District Collector, D. _G. Khan to the Tehsildar, Rajanpur (Copy Annexure '0'). The Commissioner has changed his view in the light of the Law Department's advice as in the memorandum (Copy Annexure ' Thus the recovery of amount of interest which is- being made under the order of the. Deputy Martial Law Administrator, as noticed above cannot be challenged in view of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.
9. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible for this Court to interfere in the matter of recovery of the amount of interest from the petitioner in pursuance of an order made under paragraph 3 of Martial Law Order No, 318. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.