NAZIR AHMED BHATTI, J.--Sheikh Fakhari Iqbal appellant herein, is owner of a silk cloth weaving unit named AI-Noor Industries, Saidu Sharif, Swat and is registered as importer and exporter with the Government of Pakistan, respondent No.l. The latter published import and export policy on 1-7- 1977 by order called the Import Policy Order, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the Order) made under the provisions of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) where under the industrial units dealing in synthetic fabrics and yarn thread of man-made fibre could take Advance Import Licence for raw material fibre to the extent of 50% of the value of the letter of credit for export. Under the said policy the only formality which was required to be performed by the industrial units to obtain such advance import licence was to furnish indemnity bond along with confirmed export letter of credit. The appellant entered into an agreement with Al- Raha Import and Export Company, Dubai (UAE) for export of synthetic fabrics. The letter of credit was established on the appellant on 25-7-1977 through American Express International Banking Corporation, Karachi for export worth US $ 8,05,000 equivalent to Pakistan Rs.80,50,000. Thereafter the plaintiff applied for an advance import licence of the value of Rs.40,03,000 and also furnished the requisite indemnity bond. The appellant also paid an amount of Rs.80,072 as import fee.
However Controller Imports and Exports, Peshawar, respondent No.2 refused to issue the said advance import licence by letter dated 7-8-1977, whereupon the appellant sought an interview with the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Rawalpindi. After the said interview the appellant received by letter dated 18-8-1977 from respondent No.2 advance import licence for Pakistan Rs.10,00,0000 for import of yarn and thread of man-made fibre against Bank Guarantee and not against the indemnity bond with export commitment of art-silk fabrics for Rs.20,00,000. The appellant tried his best to obtain the licence applied for by him but the respondents expressed their inability by fetter dated 23-10-1977. The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.625/77 in this High Court but the same was dismissed on 9-1-1979 on the submission of the respondents that yarn and thread of man-made fibre had been placed on the free list. The appellant claimed that the action of the respondents to impose the condition for bank guarantee and also to reduce the amount of the letter of credit for issuance of the import licence was illegal, void mala fide and against the principles of natural justice inter alia on the following grounds:-
(a) Under the Import Policy Order of 1979 there was no condition so far as the plaintiffs industrial unit was concerned for furnishing the bank guarantee, who obtain the said advance licence.
(b) The defendants were incompetent to reduce the amount of the letter of credit.
(c) The plaintiff was treated in a discriminatory manner as such as to say that the defendant did issue Advance Import licence to the other Industrial Units in the country without asking a single question from them against the Indemnity Bond to the tune of crores of rupees.
(d) That the plaintiff having fulfilled all the conditions required for issuance of advance Import Licence had acquired a vested right to be with an Advance Import Licence." The appellant also claimed that on account of the said illegal, mala fide and void acts of the respondents he suffered damages to the extent of Rs.84,00,000 as under:--
(i) On procurement of order for the Export of Rs.80,50,000 vide letter of credit dated ------ Rs.5,00,000
(ii) Had the licence been issued and the export made said letter of credit the plaintiff would have earned profit of Rs.20,00,000 @ 25%...Rs.20,00,000.
(iii) Loss of reputation for not exporting the items under letter of credit...Rs.50,00,000.
(iv) The damages claimed by the Importers Rs.8,00,000.
(v) Miscellaneous expenses for running about Saidu Sharif to Peshawar and back including legal charges ...Rs.1,00,000."
The appellant, therefore, filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Swat against the respondents to claim damages of Rs.84,00,000. The respondents took up in their written statements many legal and factual objections to the suit. It was contended by them that the Court had got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as they did not reside within its territorial jurisdiction, that the appellant had got no cause of action as he had no vested right because no advance import licence had been granted to him. It was further mentioned in the written statement that they had decided not to issue advance licences for yarn thread of man- made fibre particularly against letters of credit originating from Dubai, without the cover of bank guarantee in order to check the heavy premium on the sale of import licences, that the appellant had entered into agreement with Al-Raha Import and Export Company Dubai on 25-7-1977 whereas he was issued Export Registration Certificate on 4-8-1977 and the letter of credit established before the registration certificate was of no value, that the appellant failed to furnish the requisite bank guarantee but even then he was offered a licence for the import of yarn worth Rs.10,00,000 but he refused to accept the same. It was further stated in the written statement that the letter of credit dated 25-8-1977 was valid only for four months upto 15-11-1977 which was too short a period as compared with the production capacity of the appellant and it could not be granted import licence for the whole amount as claimed by them. Moreover the appellant had failed to file a review application or an appeal to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports or a revision petition to the Government of Pakistan and had waived the remedies available to him and the suit was barred.
2. From the pleadings of the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following issues:-
(1) , Whether this Court has got the jurisdiction to try the present suit ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action ?
(3) Whether the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. Was not served on the defendants, if so to what effect ?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to bring the present suit ?
(5) Whether the suit is hit by the principle of res judicata ?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.84,00,000 as damages prayed for ?
(7) Relief ?
After recording evidence as produced by the parties, the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 19-4-1982 decided issues Nos.l, 2 and 6 in the negative and dismissed the suit of the appellant.
3 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length who also took us through the record of the case.
4. According to the provisions contained in Article 10 of the Order yarn and thread of man-made fibre, specified at serial No.377, of Annex 1 to the Order could be imported by or for the public sector agency provided that the expenditure involved on such import was chargeable to the foreign exchange allocation of the agency concerned. It is also provided in Article 16 of the Order that such import could be allowed on furnishing an indemnity bond or a bank guarantee. It is also provided in section 4-A of the Act that no person shall sell, purchase or otherwise deal in any import licence.
5. The contents of the written statement show that the appellant had opened a letter of credit before he was actually granted a certificate of registration by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. It shall thus be seen that the appellant was not yet a registered importer and exporter of the yarn in question when he had opened the letter of credit. 1t has also been mentioned in the written statement that the letter of credit was opened on 25-7-1977 for a period of four months and it was to expire after 25-11-1977. It is also disclosed from the written statement and has also been proved from the evidence that the appellant was working with only 65 looms. Keeping all these circumstances in view the respondents were of the opinion that the appellant could not utilize in the period of four months the entire quota of yarn which he had demanded and so they allowed him a quota of Rs.10,00,000 for import of the yarn whereby he could manufacture exportable cloth worth Rs.20,00,000. There is no denial on the part of the appellant of the aforesaid facts as were disclosed in the written statement. It is also a fact that to guard against any unhealthy practices and ulterior dealings in yarn the respondents had demanded bank guarantee instead of indemnity bond in so far as the opening of the letter of credit by the, appellant in Dubai was concerned. The respondents were within their legal right ether to demand indemnity bond or bank guarantee under the provisions of the Order as specified above. No exception could be taken by the appellant to this demand of the respondents.
6. The appellant had not so far been issued any licence for the import of the yarn in question when he had filed the suit. He had refused to accept the licence which was being offered to him by the respondents. At the time when he instituted the suit he was not possessed of any vested right as no licence had yet been issued to him. At the most he could claim a privilege to obtain such a licence.
The matter of grant of import or export licence has been a subject-matter of many cases in the superior Courts of this country. It was held in the case of Government of Pakistan v. Zamir Ahmad PLD 1975 SC 667 that Import Policy Order did not create unqualified statutory right in favour of any person. Again in the case of Riaz & Kandawalla Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1979 Kar. 807 it was held that the grant of import licence was a mere privilege and no vested right to its grant was acquired by submitting an application unless licence authenticated in favour of applicant and hence refusal by Licensing Authority to issue licence was not unlawful, illegal or wrongful.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that a right to apply for an import licence was not a fake right but a valuable right and enforceable at law. In support of his contention he brought to our notice the case of Shameem Textile Mills v. Republic of Pakistan PLD 1972 Lah. 572 but after the perusal of this judgment we are respectfully of the opinion that although it is a valuable right to apply for an import licence and the same could not be lawfully refused provided all the legal formalities had been completed by the person applying for the same. We are of the respectful opinion that the grant of an import licence under the Act read with the Order would become a vested right only when all the formalities required under the Act and the Order have been complied with in letter and spirit by the person applying for the licence and the same is the purport of the aforesaid judgment of the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court. From the circumstances which we have narrated earlier it shall be seen that the appellant had neither furnished bank guarantee as demanded lawfully from him nor was he a registered exporter when he opened the letter of credit and he could also not satisfy the respondents that he could complete the quota in the period of four months which were at his disposal under the terms of the letter of credit. As such the appellant could not claim any vested right to claim the import licence. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the case of Bilal Ahmad v. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce PLD 1963 (W.P) Kar. 981 in support of his contention that violation of scheme framed by Government with regard to import of goods was arbitrary and legally objectionable. We respectfully accept this opinion as well but our objections to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant are the same as we have stated above. In the case of Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Aslam 1986 SCM R 916 it was held by the Supreme Court that vested rights could not be allowed to be overridden unless it took place by unequivocal words by an organ or authority competent to impair or override the vested right in this, judgment as well the focal point of discussion was the acquisition vested right whereas in the case in hand no such right had yet accrued in favour of the appellant. He was offered a licence and he refused to accept it.
8. There is -also a provision for review, appeal or revision in the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957, notified under the Act and appellant did not adopt any of the aforesaid courses of action before filing the suit. The appellant failed to exhaust all the remedies available under the Act before he filed the suit and it can be said that the suit was premature.
9. In so far as the question of jurisdiction of the Court of Senior Civil Judge is concerned, the industry of the appellant has been in Swat and he had also applied for the licence from Swat as such the learned Senior Civil Judge had jurisdiction in the matter and he erroneously decided this issue against the appellant.
10. The appellant failed to prove that he had suffered any loss due to any negligence on the part of the respondents and for that reason was entitled to any compensation for such damages and for the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.