1. SAWUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The petitioner who is carrying on business tinder the name and style of Messrs Hanif Adnan and Company as an Overseas Employment Promoters has challenged in this petition the order of respondent No. 2 communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3rd June, 1981, refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner for the period from 1st January, 1981 to 31st December, 1981. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are as fellows :- The petitioner who is a licensed Overseas Employment Promoters was given a show-cause notice by respondent 2 dated 9th September, 1980 calling upon him to show cause under section 12 (3) of Emigration Act, 1979 as to why his licence should not be cancelled and the security furnished by him forfeited. The petitioner in response to the above notice submitted his reply to respondent 2 on 16th September, 1980 b without considering the same respondent 2 passed an order on 21 September, 1980 in the following terms :- "As desired by the Director-General, Bureau of Emigration and Overseas Employment, you are given a time of 20 days to ser the. Problems to the satisfaction of the Labour Attache, Jed& failing which your licence is liable to be cancelled and the case be handed over to the Police."
2. The above order was successfully challenged by the petitioner Writ Petition No. 1408/80 which was accepted by a Division Bench this Court on 9th April, 1981 and orders passed by respondent 2 v~ quashed. It appears that during the pendency of Petition No. 1408/2 the petitioner applied to respondent 2 for renewal of his license which was due to expire on 3rd December, 1980 and consequently the petition was amended and a relief was added therein seeking a direction from t Court against respondent 2 for renewal of the licence. However, t prayer for renewal of the licence was not pressed at the final hearing the petition as the learned counsel appearing for respondents in that petition made a statement before the Court that the authorities have r refused the renewal of the licence and that the same will be considered the authorities concerned on its merits.
3. Immediately after the decision Petition No. 1408/80 the petitioner approached respondent 2 by application dated 21st April, 1981 for renewal of his licence for the period end: 31st December 1981. On the following day i. e. 22nd April, 1981 petitioner addressed a letter to respondent 2 alleging that on 21 April, 1981 when the petitioner appeared before respondent 2 in connection with the renewal of his licence he was threatened by respondent who was allegedly annoyed because of the proceedings of Petit Nos. 1408/1980. This was followed by a telegram dated 3rd of May, 1! Sent by petitioner's counsel to respondent 2 requesting for the renewal the licence and pointing out that 5 months have already passed when applied for renewal of the licence. It is alleged that as the respondent did not pass any order the petitioner filed another Petition No. 524/1 seeking a direction against the respondent for renewal of the licence of petitioner. It is further alleged that on coming - to know of the proceeding of Petition No. 524 of 1981 the respondent 2 mala fidely passed the of and communicated him through letter dated 3rd June, 1981 which has given rise to this petition. The order communicated to the petitioner on June, 1981 is in the following terms :~ "I am directed to refer to your letter No. Nil dated 17th November 1980 on the subject mentioned above and to inform you that a giving you an opportunity of personal bearing on 30th May, 1 at Karachi, Director-General, Bureau of Emigration and Over Employment in exercise of the power vested in him under rule S of the Emigration Rules,. 1979, has decided not to renew O. No. 0219/KAR/80 for the year 1981."
4. We have heard Mr. Nasim Farooqui, the learned counsel for petitioner and Mr."S. Inayat Ali, the learned standing counsel for respondents. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that this petition must succeed.
5. The actual text of the order of respondent 2 refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner has not been produced in these proceedings. The only document available on record in this regard is the letter dated 3rd of June, 1981 which is reproduced above. The renewal of a licence is governed under rule 9, sub-rule (2) of the Emigration Rules, 1979 which is in the following terms :- "(2) If at the time of renewal of licence the Federal Government is satisfied that the Overseas Employment Promoter has been guilty of misconduct, or his performance has been unsatisfactory or he has committed breach of the provisions of the Ordinance or these rules, it may by written order, refuse to renew the licences Provided that before making an order for refusal to renew the licence the Overseas Employment Promoter shall be given an opportunity of being heard."
6. A perusal of the above rule will show that the authority may refuse renewal of a licence for a variety of reasons mentioned in this sub-rule but before passing an order refusing to renew the license, the persons affected is to be given an opportunity of being heard. The above provision leave ~ us in no doubt that an order refusing to renew the licence of an Overseas Employment Promoter, has to be a reasoned and speaking order for in such an order it has to be shown in what manner the licence has been guilty of misconduct or his performance has remained unsatisfactory or that he has committed breach of any of the provisions of the Ordinance or the rules. . We, therefore, feel no difficulty in holding that the order dated 3rd of June, 1981 communicated to the petitioner is not an order contemplated under this rule and is therefore, liable to be struck down. The order does not disclose any reason whatsoever for refusing to renew the license of the petitioner the consideration of the material on which] refusal was based. Mr. S. Inayat Ali the learned standing counsel appear- -ing for the respondents although did not support the order dated 3rd of June, 1981 passed by respondent 2 but contended that the petitioner bad an alternate remedy available to him under the law against the above order under rule 12 of the Emigration Rules, 1979, Rule 12 is in the following terms : -st 1112. Appeal.--(1) Where the Federal Government has delegated its powers under section 12 to the Director General or any other Officer, any person aggrieved by the order of the Director-General or such Officer passed under the said section may, within thirty days from the date of the Order prefer an appeal to the Federal Government.
(2) Every appeal shall be filed in duplicate, in Form 4, accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees.
(3) Before an order is passed in appeal, the appellant shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard."
7. The above provisions of appeal provides an appeal in respect of the orders passed by the delegatee of the Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred under section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1.979. D The power to renew a licence does not fall under section 12 of the Ordinance but is provided under rule 9 of the Emigration Rules, 1979. The right of appeal being a substantive right it must be specifically provi--ded for before it is availed. We are therefore, of the view that an order refusing to renew the license of a OEP is not appealable under rule 12 of Emigration Rules, 1979. Apart from it we are also of the view that existence of an alternate remedy, if any, in the present case will not come in the way of the petitioner for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. The existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar on the powers of this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution but it only regulates the proceedings of this Court. For in cases where the alternative remedy is not equally efficacious or speedy or where the order impugned on the face of it is patently illegal or without lawful authority or suffers from such legal infirmities which are apparent on the face of the order the Court may, in spite of existence of an alternative remedy, exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 199 and grant the relief to the aggrieved party in such circumstan--ces. In the present case even if we were to agree with the learned coun--sel for the respondent that there existed another alternate remedy we would not have hesitated to grant relief to the petitioner in these proceed-- ings for more than one reasons. Firstly the petitioner had applied for renewal of the license in November, 1980 but no decision was given by respondent 2 on his application. In spite of decision of Petition No. 1408/ 81 on 9th April, 1981 and appearance of the petitioner before respondent 2 on 21st April, 1981 again no decision was taken and the petitioner was obliged to file another Petition No. 528/81 seeking renewal of his license. It was only after Petition No. 528181 was filed in this Court that respon--dent 2 communicated the impugned order which on its face appears to be an unlawful order. The respondents have not produced before us the actual text of the order dated 3rd June, 1981 nor any attempt was made to produce before us the material which formed the basis of refusal by respondent 2 to renew the licence. The license for which renewal is applied for will be valid only up to December, 1981 and there appears to be no justification in these circumstances to direct the petitioner to avail of the alleged right of appeal. We accordingly quash the order of respondent 2 dated 3rd June, 1981 and further direct respondent2 to forth--with renew the licence of the petitioner for the period ending December, 1981. In view of the fact that the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents has taken a very candid and fair stand in the case we make no order as to costs. Petition is allowed with no order as to costs.