1. ' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--We have heard Mr.Muhammad All Saeed, for the petitioner and Mr.Noorul Hassan, for the respondents.
2. ' This petition has called into question the order passed on 30-10-1986 terminating the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Government dated 5th December, 1983 and also terminating the Fishing Licence/permit issed to the petitioner in pursuance of the said contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Ali Saeed has argued that the respondents are bound to follow the rules contained in Exclusive Fishery Zone (Regulation of Fishing) Rules, 1978 and rule 7 allows the cancellation of the licences only on conviction for contravention or failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and these rules.
3. ' The submission would have been justified if there had been a simple fishing licence issued to the petitioner in pursuance of Act XXXII of 1975 and the rules mentioned, above but the fishing licence issued to the petitioner was issued in pursuance of the contract dated 5-12-1983 which is an elaborate contract running into about 13 pages, and in Annexure 'A' various penalties are also mentioned. It also provides for arbitration in case of disputes. The petitioner in his petition has not only complained of the cancellation but has also complained of the termination of the contract and in the prayer clause of the petition as well as in the application for injunction a prayer has been made for the restoration of the contract as well as of the licence. It is a clear position before us that we cannot restore a contract in the exercise of our constitutional jurisdiction and for this the petitioner has to go before the orginal side Judge of this Court and since the two prayers are inter linked with each other, therefore, it would not be possible for us to restore the licence which is so intimately connected and was issued in pursuance of the contract. We have noted that in the contract there is a provision for termination of the contract without notice.
4. ' We do not want to comment on the position whether the inquiry which was initiated on the complaint of Pakistan Naval Intelligence had provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioner in respect of the cancellation of the license but it is enough for our purpose to note that there had been an enquiry in the matter where several statements of different people had been recorded and of course the contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had not been allowed to cross- examine the witnesses.
5. The position, therefore, is that we do not have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition as it is framed and, therefore, we dismiss this petition in limine as well as the Misc. Applications.