ORDER: RIAZ AHMAD, CHAIRMAN.--1. During the course of proceeding under the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, it was found that although the value of assets of the Paracha Textile Mill Limited, a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the company), had throughout been more than one crore of rupees, Mr. Saeedullah Khan, respondent, who alongwith his brothers, sisters, father and mother holds and controls shares of the company carrying 88.09 per cent of the voting power, has taken no steps to get himself registered under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 16 read with sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Ordinance. Consequently a notice was issued in his name requiring him to explain why penal action may not be taken against him under section 19 of the Ordinance for wilfully failing to get himself registered with the Authority.
2. Before a decision on the show-cause notice could be taken, the respondent made a belated application for registration which was received in the office on 7th June, 1976. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for hearing but it was adjourned from time to time and finally came up before us on 27th November, 1976.
3. Mr. Nasir. Zahid counsel for the respondent has urged that the respondent was under no legal obligation to get himself registered or at least he believed in good-faith that he had no such obligation. The application for registration, it is contended, has been made by way of abundant caution only. He admitted that registration would have been a legal necessity if the value of the assets of the company had been one crore of. rupees or more at any time after the enforcement of the Ordinance, but contended that the said value never reached that figure. According to him the term value of assets as defined in clause (o) of sub-section (1) of section 2 on its tree interpretation means the value of only such assets as are subject to depreciation which in substance are none except the fixed assets of the company.
He pointed out that the depreciated value of the fixed assets had always been less than one crore of rupees.
The audited balance sheets of the company as supplied by it shows the following position: Date 30-9-1970 30-9-1971 30-9-1972 30-9-1973 Fixed assets92,41,976.3685,45,829.001,68,15,494.6099,75,409.31 (Less de- preciation)
Current assets66,71,342.4769,96,037.841,06,59,379.302,04,54,156.53 Total value1,59,13,318.831,55,41,866.842,14,74,873.903,04,29,565.84 Even if there is any substance in the arguments of the learned counsel, he had no explanation to offer in respect of the position as on 30th September, 1972 when the depreciated value of only the fixed assets of the company was over one crore of rupees and the respondent failed to carry out his legal obligation to get himself registered.
5. The argument that for the purposes of clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 16 the value of assets, in view of the definition of the term in clause (o) of sub-section (1) of section 2, excludes the current assets, has no force. The precise question had come up before the Authority in the case of Messrs Jupiter Textile Mills Limited reported in PLJ 1973. Tr. C (Monopoly) 276 and it was unanimously held that the term means the total assets and not the fixed assets alone. The question was discussed. in detail in that case and we do not find it necessary to reiterate those arguments which led to the conclusion.
6. Since the value of assets of the company in which the respondent .field and controlled shares carrying more than fifty per cent of the voting power, has throughout been more than one crore of rupees, the respondent, B as an individual, was required in law to get himself registered under section 16(1)(h) of the Ordinance. The plea taken before us that the respondent in good faith believed that he was not required to register himself with the Authority and as such the default was not wilful is of no consequence. Every citizen is presumed to know the statute law of the realm and to construe it aright. Ignorance of law has never been recognized as a valid excuse and no such plea is open to a person before a Court a Tribunal or C en Authority seized of a case of infringement of statutory obligation. The respondent having wilfully failed to get himself registered is liable to suffer the penalty provided in section 19(1). We consequently direct the respondent Saeedullah Khan to pay to the Federal Government by way of penalty a sum. of five thousand rupees before 1st February, 1977.
7. The registration application filed beyond time by the respondent be taken up separately for scrutiny and disposal.