This judgment will dispose of following writ petitions:- Writ Petitions Nos. 2254/83, 4356/83, 4374/83, 572/84, 1460/85, 4413/85, 5109/85, 180/86, 216186, 358/86 and 359/86.
2. The different petitioners in the abovementioned Writ Petitions are manufacturing grease from used mobil oil. They feel aggrieved as the respondents are restraining them from carrying on their business. The petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.2254/83, 4356/83, 572/84 and 1460/85 applied for permission of the respondents, but their applications have been rejected. The applications of petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 358 and 359 of 1986 are still pending. The rest of the petitioners have not even applied for permission.
3. The question whether the respondents can put a restraint on the business of the petitioners came up before this Court earlier in Writ Petition No,1109/84, which was dismissed alongwith 21 other writ petitions on 7-10-1985. These orders were challenged in an Intra-Court Appeal, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn. The present petitions involve the same question. It has, however, been urged that the question be examined again in the light of the provision of Article 18 of the Constitution which guarantees freedom of trade, business of profession. Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate, has. Also stated that respondents have violated the orders of this Court, passed in Writ Petition No,1507/83, while rejecting his client's application.
4. Messrs Sial Enterprises, petitioners in Writ Petition No,2254/83 came to this Court in Writ Petition No,1570/83. The 1Vrit Petition was disposed of on 25-4-1983. The contention of the petitioners that there was no requirement of making an application for grant of licence was not accepted and it was held that Rules 16, 17 and 18 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 were applicable. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application, which the petitioners intended to move, within one month in accordance with law. The Court never directed that in disposing of the application, the provisions of Rule 17 are to be ignored. Rule 17 provides for inviting applications as and when required. The petitioners' applications were rejected under this rule, as no applications had been invited. The rejection of the applications is, therefore, not in violation of the.Orders in Writ Petition No,1570/83.
5. Under Article 18 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation and to conduct any lawful trade or business, but this Article does not prevent "the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system". The learned counsel does not question the susceptibility of the petitioners' business from being regulated nor does he challenge the vires of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, as amended, but objects to the extent of authority given to the respondent under Rule 17 which, according to the petitioners, is unreasonably excessive. Rule 17 provides as follows: APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION
(1) Applications for permission to set up a blending plant or reclamation plant or while oil production plant or to produce finished lubricating oils or greases or refined or reclaimed lube oils or reclaimed white oils may be invited by the Authority through the Press as and when required.
(2)It is argued that while the Government can regulate the business of the petitioners, the matter of inviting applications as and when required cannot be left to the sweetwill of the respondents. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel are in the market, because there is demand for their products. In reply the learned Deputy Attorney-General has pointed out that there is no complaint from any quarters' that there is a shortage of lubricating oil in the country. According to him the two large producers of the commodity, namely, the Attock Oil Refinery and a subsidiary of Pakistan Refinery at Karachi are actually working below their capacity. On the other hand, certain unscrupulous persons, conducting an unauthorised business, are re4ycling used mobil oil and are marketing it as standard mobil oil, by repacking it in the empty tins of well-known brands. This, according to the learned counsel, the Government can prevent, according to the rules.
6. It is evident that the existing production capacity is sufficient to meet the demand. There is, therefore, no occasion for inviting applications for adding to this capacity. The petitioners are unable to demonstrate that the decision, not to invite applications at this stage, is mala fide. The rules are, therefore, not being applied unreasonabl to the case of the petitioners. I find no merit in these petitions. The are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.