1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.-The petitioner has challenged in this petition the refusal by respondent No, 2 to renew his storage licence for the year 1975.
2. The admitted position in the case is that storage licence was originally granted to the petitioner in the year 1954 and was renewed from year to year until December, 1974. It is claimed by the petitioner that in or about October, 1974 as required under the rules the licence was submitted as usual for renewal through respondent No, 1 to respondent No,
2. However respondent No, 1 by his lettter dated 24th December, 1974 informed the petitioner that the site where the petrol pump of the petitioner is situated has been treated as "kerb side" and therefore the licence issued in favour will not be renewed for the year 1975. This intimation it is alleged was received by the petitioner by the end of December, 1974 and since the licence issued to petitioner was expiring on 31st December, 1974 he filed the present petition. The respondent No, 2 in his counter-affidavit filed in the case has raised two-fold grounds. It is firstly asserted that the decision to treat the site where the petrol pump of petitioner is situated, as a "kerb side" was taken as late as 10th August, 1974 and the oil company concerned were asked to re-site the 'kerb side' pumps which was not done. It is further stated that the petitioner had a right of appeal in the case which he failed to avail. It is stated that the petitioner having come to know of the refusal should have applied under rule 122 of Petroleum Rules, 1973 for a copy of the reasons of refusal and after obtaining it in the manner prescribed should have filed the appeal. The fact however, remains that respondent No, 2 did not produce with his counter-affidavit copy of the reasons allegedly given by respondent No, 2 for not renewing the licence of petitioner for the year 1975. It is also not denied by respondent No, 2 in his counter-affidavit that no notice intimating the petitioner about the refusal by respondent No, 2 to renew the licence for 1975 was given directly to the petitioner, Respondent No, 2 only relied on letter No, P-1 (451) dated 10th August, 1974 in support of his plea that the licence of the petitioner was not renewed as the site where his petrol pump was situated was treated as `kerbside. The letter relied by respondent No, 2 is as follows :- "The General Manager, PBS (2) P. N.
0. (3) Caltex (4) ESSO (5) DPL. Karachi.
3. Sub :-Romoval/Resitement of Kerbside Petroleum Pumps. Dear Sirs, ' It is observed that despite sufficient time given for removal/resitement of kerbside pumps, there still remains a number of such pumps operating in the country. Due to hazardous situation created by these kerbside pumps, a final time limit upto 31st December, 1974 is given to you to remove/resite all such pumps failing which renewal of the licences pa rtaining to these pumps will be refused and transactions on such pump sites will not be allowed with effect from 1st January, 1975.
4. ' Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and apprise this Deptt : of the progress made in the matter. Yours truly, (Sd.)
5. (DR. M. TAFAIL CHAUDHARY), Chief Inspector of Explosives in Pakistan.
6. Tel.
7. 514632.
8. The above letter relied upon by Respondent No, 2 is firstly a policy{ decision which was communicated to all the Oil Companies functioning in Pakistan. This letter is not endorsed to the individual licence holders whose sites were allegedly treated as "kerbside". In the 2nd place, copies of the above letter were endorsed to the concerned officials of the department of respondent No, 2 to scrutinize the cases of individual and finalise the same before 31st December, 1974. There is nothing on record to show that the case of petitioner was dealt with in accordance with the above policy decision by the concerned official and therefore in these circumstances the question of preferring any appeal by the petitioner did not arise. The letter dated 10th August, 1974 reproduced above in its terms cannot also b treated as order of respondent No, 2 refusing to renew the licence of petitioner for the year 1975. We accordingly accept this petition and declare the action of respondent No 2 in refusing to renew the licence of the petitioner for the year 1975 as without any lawful authority. There will however, be no order as to costs as respondent No, 2 did not appear and contest the petition.