' This Judgment shall decide Civil Revision No, 654/99 and Civil Revision No, 655/99 as both these cases involve common point of law. Admittedly the petitioner is a holder of a license in Form J for non-dangerous petroleum. This license has been issued to him under the Petroleum Rules, 1937.
According to the petitioner he is conducting his business in strict accordance with the terms of the license. The grievance of the petitioner was that at the behest of the private respondent the official respondents are interfering with his business and are threatening to seal his business premises.
With these averments a declaration was sought that High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil have been wrongly declared to be dangerous petroleum and as injunction was sought that the respondents be restrained from interfering with his business being carried on in accordance with the license. The case of the official respondents before the learned trial Court was that the petitioner had been given a license for storage of non-dangerous petroleum and for storage of heavy petroleum. 'According to the said respondents High Speed Diesel Oil is heavy petroleum and can be stored only at a petrol pump which requires a license in Fork K. According to the said respondents, there are three categories of petroleum:-
(i) Dangerous petroleum (Petrol, supper, premier),
(ii) Non-dangerous petroleum (Kerosene Oil, Light Diesel .0i1).
(iii) Heavy Petroleum (High Speed Diesel Oil, Furnace Oil)
' Along with the suit an application for grant of temporary injunction was filed which was also resisted by the respondents. The learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the said application vide order dated 14.1.1999. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Arifwala Camp at Pakpattan Shari who dismissed the same on 7.10.1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Courts below have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their respective jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders. According to the learned counsel the statutory provisions on the subject have 'been misinterpreted by the learned Courts below. Learned Standing Counsel as also the learned counsel for the private respondents support the impugned orders. .
3. I have gone through the copies of several documents filed with these Civil Revisions as stated by me earlier the admitted position is that the petitioner is holding a license in Form J which authorizes him to store up to 5000 gallons of non-dangerous petroleum. The parent statute is the Petroleum Act, 1934. Section 2(b) of the said Act defines Dangerous petroleum to mean petroleum having its flashing point below seventy-six degrees Fahrenheit. According to Section 7 of the said Act a person need not to obtain a licence for the transport or storage of non-dangerous petroleum if the total quantity in his possession at any one place does not exceed five hundred gallons and none of it is contained in a receptacle exceeding two hundred gallons capacity. A Plain reading of the said provisions of the Parent Act would show that petroleum of any kind, the flashing point whereof is above 76F is non-dangerous petroleum. According to the learned counsel representing the official respondents as well as the private respondents the flashing point of High Speed Diesel Oil is 150F. Thus A by all means the High Speed Diesel Oil is not a dangerous petroleum as defined in the said Act. Reference was them made to the definition of no dangerous petroleum is Notification No, 4 (41)79-Admn. IV dated 9.5.1981. According to this notification non-dangerous petroleum means petroleum which has its flashing point not below 76F and not above 120F.
4. I am afraid apart from the fact that the said definition Orders at ridiculous, I find that the said notification had been issued by the Federal Government in exercise of its powers under Section 29(4) of the said Act, 1934 and through this notification amendment is sought to be made in the Petroleum Rules, 1937. To my mind the notification is prima facie without lawful authority as it tends to amend a provision of the main Act itself where the dangerous petroleum has been duly defined.
5. Another argument sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the respondent in that the petitioner is selling the nun-dangerous petroleum. I have gone through the said Act as well as the said Rules, 1937. I do not find any prohibition spelt Jut therein restraining the petitioner or for that matter anyone else from selling non-dangerous or even dangerous petroleum, provided it is stored in the manner prescribed.
6. As a result of the above discussion I do agree with the learned/counsel for the petitioner that the learned Courts below have acted with material irregularity in the exercise of their jurisdiction while dismissing the application for grant of temporary injunction in these two matters. Both the Civil Revisions are accordingly allowed and the applications for grant of temporary injunction are accepted and the temporary injunction as prayed for is granted to remain enforced till the decision of the suit. This will, however, be subject to the petitioner regularly paying the fees and other charges and getting his license renewed as and when required by law.
7. Before parting with this judgment I would like to clarify my order dated 19.11.1999, whereby I admitted these Civil Revisions to regular hearing. I have referred to the Petroleum Rules, 1985 as published in the relevant text book. The learned Standing Counsel has informed that these are in fact draft Rules and have not so far been adopted or enforced.