' MUHAMMAD ASLAM MIAN, J.--This appeal has been brought from an order dated 19-7-1986 of the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition in limine impugning an order dated 16-3-1986 of the District Magistrate Gujranwala whereby the appellant was debarred from working at any place within the District.
2. The appellant was granted a stamp vending licence in the year 1982 under Rule 27 of the Punjab Stamp Rules 1934 framed under section 74 of the Stamp Act 1899. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala on 7-2-1982 found on checking the Registers of the appellant certain irregularities, he was served with a notice to show cause as to why his licence was not to be cancelled. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala cancelled the licence of the appellant and imposed a fine of Rs.500 by his order dated 23-9-1982.
3. The appellant went in appeal to the Commissioner who upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector in dismissing the appeal yet adding:- "It is further ordered that the appellant be blacklisted and shall not be allowed to work in any Court or office in this Division as a stamp vendor or petition writer. This should also be notified to other Commissioners in the Punjab."
This is vide judgment dated 6-12-1982.
' A revision petition thereagainst by the appellant before the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore also failed vide order dated 16-3-1983.
4. The appellant questioned the validity of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujranwala, Commissioner Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and the Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, in Writ petition No,4276 of 1983 which was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court on 21-1-1985. The appellant took the matter therefrom to the Supreme Court. He was allowed to work as Stamp Vendor by the Supreme Court during the pendency of his petition for leave to appeal. After the petition for leave to appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed while restoring the licence of one Muhammad Ashraf, the learned District Magistrate, Gujranwala with reference to the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner against the appellant observed: "Mr. Shaukat Ali was black listed by the Commissioner and was directed that he should not be allowed to work at any place in the District. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala, Tehsildar Gujranwala are directed to recover the amount of fine i.e. Rs.500 imposed on him and ensure that Mr. Shaukat Ali should not be allowed to work at any place in the District. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Gujranwala should also arrange to collect the stamp registers so that he may not make any further entries in the registers". This is vide order dated 16-3-1986.
5. The appellant questioned the validity of the above said order by filing a writ petition on a ground that the direction embodied in the above said order had the effect of closing all the doors of work on the appellant though he had every right to earn his livelihood by doing any work which was not prohibited by any law. The learned single Judge after taking into consideration the report called from the respondent observed:- "The petitioner seems to have felt apprehensive because the quotation from Commissioner's order made in the impugned order is incomplete which of course depicted a wider sphere of restriction imposed upon the petitioner than the one contemplated in the origial order. However, from the report of the respondent it is absolutely clear that he did not mean anything beyond what had been said by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 6-12-1982 which has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter, no fresh order restricting petitioner's professional activities has been passed and consequently, this petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed in limine."
' This is vide order dated 19-7-1986.
6. In this Intra Court Appeal having been brought from the order of the learned Single Judge the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant for his livelihood after his licence had been cancelled had engaged himself in writing deeds of agreement, powers of attorney and other documents for private parties for which no licence was required either from the High Court or the Board of Revenue.
' The learned Single Judge has merely explained the order dated 16-3-1986 of the respondent and has not adverted to the subject matter and prayer in the writ petition. The order of the learned Commissioner dated 6-12-1982 speaks for itself but the respondent has made it as an omni bus order which is being construed illegally. The impugned order as it stands is in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there is a vast difference between the deed writing to which the appellant has taken and a petition writing, as to the meaning of both he has referred to Feroz- ul-Lughat. Next he has referred to the High Court Rules,Volume No.1 Chapter 17-B, A-Definitions, rule 1 and B-Licensing of Petition-writers, rule 1, which are reproduced here:- ' A-Definitions
1. In these rules:- 'Petition' means a document, written for the purpose of being presented to a Court or a Judicial or Revenue Officer, as such, and includes a plaint and memorandum of appeal.
' Note:- A Mukhtarnama is not a petition.
'To practise as a Petition-writer' means to write petitions, as defined above, for hire, and includes the writing of a single petition for hire.
'A Petition-writer is said to practise in a Court when he writes petitions for the purpose of being presented to that Court...............
' B-Licensing of Petition-writers.
1. No person shall practise as a Petition writer in the Punjab unless he has been duly licensed under these rules:- Provided:-
(1) that any person licensed under any rule hitherto in force shall be deemed to have been licensed under these rules;
7. The sum total of the submission of the learned counsel is that the respondent has made the order of the Commissioner to look as an order of total prohibition as to the work by the appellant at any place in the District Gujranwala which according to him is a prohibition an unwarranted one.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent while opposing has submitted that the appellant's licence was cancelled because he had committed grave irregularities, for instance in the stamp vending register he had kept several serial numbers as blank apparently for making ante-date entries. Two lines were kept blank between two serial numbers which were done with some ulterior motive. A number of columns where the signatures of the purchasers were to be obtained were kept by him as blank. In his stock of stamps two non-judicial stamps for. Rs.5 each were found written in the form of agreement without entering the names of the purchasers, their addresses and dates. The order as passed by the respondent is in keeping with the order of the Commissioner which has been upheld upto the Supreme Court and is also deserved by the appellant due to his mala fide conduct in dealing with the stamp vending. His further dispensation even in deeds writing is not going to be safe.
9. After going through the respondent's order we do find that the respondent has not stayed with the order of the Commissioner as to its extent but has taken it out of its ambit so as to make it absolute in prohibition in his own way by saying that Mr. Shaukat All should not be allowed to work at any place in the District. The prohibition as added by the Commissioner is as to stamp vending or petitions writing in the Division for which the appellant has been blacklisted. It is necessary to observe here that the petitions writing is a subject covered by the High Court Rules. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that can be done only under a licence covered by the High Court Rules. The appellant who allegedly has taken to deed writing simpliciter for which no licence is required by any law or Rules, can enter upon or practise as to earn his livelihood, therefore, the direction issued by the respondent to the effect that Mr. Shaukat All should not be allowed to work at any place in the District is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect being inconsistent with the fundamental right as to the freedom of trade, business or profession as guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 in accepting this Intra Court Appeal after setting aside the order dated 19-7-1986 of the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.