SHAHID WAHEED, J.---The record appended with this petition indicates that the Cane Commissioner , Punjab, on perusal of data provided by the sugar mills, came to know of the malpractice of not paying the interest at the rate of 11% to the sugarcane growers on account of delayed payments beyond 15 days. Since it was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Punjab Factories (Control) Rules, 1950, the Cane Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 16(10) of the Punjab Sugar . Factories (Control) Rules, 1950 directed the Occupiers/General Managers of all the sugar mills in the Punjab to provide information about the payment of cane growers' dues on the pro forma which included grower-wise details of date of cane purchased and date of its payment. This information was required to ascertain how much of interest amount had been paid to the growers on account of delayed payments.
2. The petitioners challenged before this Court through W.P. No.45469 of 2020 the proforma through which the Cane Commissioner sought information about the payment of cane growers' dues. During pendency of the said petition, the petitioners filed objections to the pro forma before the Cane Commissioner . Upon noticing this fact the petition was disposed of through order dated 29th September , 2020 with the direction to the Cane Commissioner to decide the objections after affording oppo rtunity of hearing to the petitioners and through a well-reasoned speaking order .
3. Pursuant to the order made by this Court in W.P.No.45469 of 2020, the petitio ners appeared before the Cane Commissioner and argued their objections. The first objection of the petitioners to the pro forma was to the effect that the information sought could only be obtained if the areas were reserved or assigned. This objection was found not tenable by the Cane Commissioner , Punjab for three reasons. Firstly , that the provisions of Rule 16(10) of the Punjab Sugar Factories (Control) Rules, 1950 are independent and not dependent upon declaration of assigned/ reserved area; secondly , that the assignm ent or reservation of areas to particular mills is not mandatory under the law; and thirdly , that in order to safeguard the interest of the growers, the practice of assignment/ reservation of areas to the sugar mills has long been discarded as per Sugar Policy 1987 and consequently , the cane growers are free to sell their produce/sugarcane. The second objection of the petitioners was that the Cane Commissioner could not call for record for a period of more than two years from the date of last transaction. This objection was accepted and the petitioners were directed to provide complete information of cane purchased and payment made against it on the prescribed proforma for the last two years vide order dated 10th November , 2020.
4. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10th November , 2020 have filed the instant petition with the contention that the Cane Commissioner without having any complaint from any grower cannot undertake. any inquiry/ investigation and thus, his suo motu exercise of jurisdiction has no backing of law .
5. After hearing, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 10th November , 2020 passed by the Cane Commissioner , Punjab as well as the investigation/inquiry under the Punjab Sugar Factories (Control) Rules, 1950.
The contention canvassed before me sans merit as the law does not make it a condition precedent that before embarking upon any investigation to chec k malpractice the Cane Commissioner must receive a complaint. In any civilized society , the administration cannot be a silent spectator to crime or violation of law. In fact it is an inherent power of any public officer or authority to take all possible steps to check malpractice, undo fraud, and, implement the law in its letter and spirit. Exactly the same is being done by the Cane Commissioner through inquiry/investigation. It is to be noted that the subject matter of the inquiry/investigation being carried out by the Cane Commissioner pertains to the bread and butter of the cane growers/small farmers. The Constitution of our country and the relevant laws cast a duty upon the organs of the State to protect the rights of the weaker section of the society . The petitioners have not brought on record any document or evidence to establish that through the investigation/inquiry by the Cane Commissioner their any right or privilege has been jeopardized or infringed. It appears that the petitioners are anticipating that on the basis of inquiry a penal action would be taken against them.
If it is so, the petitioners cannot be allowed to maintain this constitutional petition. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "National Steel Rollin: Mills and others v. Province o West Pakistan" (1968 SCMR 317 (2)) and "Virasat Ullah v. Basher Ahmad, Settle ment Commissioner (Industries) and another" (1969 SCMR 154 ).
6. There is another good reason for declining the prayer made in this petition. A letter or pro forma issued by the Cane Commissioner requiring informat ion about the payment of cane growers is the first step of the inquiry/investigation. The decision of the objections to' the inquiry proceedings being interlocutory order is in the nature of a step towards a final order eventually to be passed by the Cane Commis sioner . It is now well settled that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitu tion of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not maintainable against intermediate stages or steps of the inquiry/investigation. Interference at this stage in the decision of the Cane Commissioner rejecting the objections would amount to stifling the inquiry/investigation. This is neither desirable nor permissible under the law .
7. Dismissed.