GULBAZ KHAN, J. -This order would dispose of Intra-Court Appeal No. 2 of 1978/BWP filed by Muhammad Haroon and No. 3 of 1978/BWP filed by Muhammad Islam Beg., as same facts and question of law are involved.
2. Muhammad Haroon and Muhammad Islam Beg were issued licences by the District Magistrate, Bahawalpur, in the year 1972, for running Ration Depots Nos. 57 and 40, respectively. These licences were cancelled on 2nd October, 1977, in pursuance of Martial Law Order No. 22 issued by Martial Law Administrator Zone (A). The order of cancellation was issued by the District Food Controller, Bahawalpur. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the District Food Controller, dated 2nd October.
1977, the appellants filed petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 but remained successful. These appeals have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13th May, 1978.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were issued licences under West Pakistan Food Stuffs Distribution Order, 1967, which was alive in pursuance of Laws (Continuance in Force) Order No. 1 of 1977 and thus the order of cancellation of licences passed under Martial Law Order No. 22 was ultra vires; the Martial Law Administrator Zone (A) has not passed any order similar to Martial Law Order No. 22 passed by Martial Law Administrator Zone
(B) and after realizing this mistake, Martial Law Order No. 46 was issued on 3rd June, 1978 whereby paragraph 2 of Martial Law Order No. 22 was deemed to have been deleted with effect from 26th March, 1978, and that before cancellation. No notice was issued to the appellants nor any reasons were given in writing for cancellation as required under the law,
4. Martial Law Order No. 22 referred to above was issued in August, 1977, whereas the order of above cancellation was passed on 2nd October, 1977. Martial Law Administrator, Punjab Zone (A) took notice of the fact that in the past, a number of irregularities had taken place in the allotment of ration depots in the Province to various persons. After thorough deliberation he endorsed the policy given in paras. Subsequent to para. No. 2 of Martial Law Order No. 22 Para. No. 8 of Martial Law Order No. 22 deals with the cancellation of Depot while Para. No. 9 deals with appeal and revision. The learned counsel for the appellants was asked as to how the present appeals were competent in view of proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. He was unable to cross this hurdle. His main stress was that Martial Law Administrator had not issued any order with respect to allotment and cancellation of depots and Martial Law Order No. 22 was applicable to Zone (B) only. We cannot agree with his view point on this issue. Martial Law Order No. 22 was equally applicable to Zone (A). Martial A Law Order No.22 was not hit by para. 5 of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order .No. 1 of 1977. Under C. M. L. A. No. 3 Martial Law Administrator of a Zone can make and issue Martial Law Orders from time to time for the Zone concerned as he may deem fit. Martial Law Order No. 22 was a valid piece of law and no valid exception could be taken to it.
These appellants were given proper hearing before the passing on the order dated 2nd October, 1977.
5. After having considered all the aspects and for reasons stated above, we hold that the appeals are incompetent, which are dismissed.