1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAD C. J.-The petitioner in this case was a Depot holder in Sodhra, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. A case was registered against him under the Foodstuffs Control Order, 1967, on the report of the President of the People's Party, Tehsil Wazirabad, and on the 9th May 1974, the District Food Controller, Gujranwala, suspended the quota of his depot.
2. ' The petitioner went in appeal against the said order before the Deputy Director, Food, Lahore Region, who on the 25th May 1974, called for the record of the case and fixed the case for hearing on 12th June 1974. In the meantime, he also suspended the order of the District Food Controller.
3. ' In compliance with this order, the District Food Controller directed the issue of the quota to the petitioner by his memo. No, A. F. C. (S)-74 dated 30.5-74. The complainant, namely, the President of the r eople's Party, Tehsil Wazirabad, then submitted a representation to the Minister of Food and Cooperatives, Government of the Punjab and, on this representation, the Minister, on 31-5-74, issued directions to the effect that the depot should not be re-instated till a report is submitted to the Minister.
4. ' On receipt of this directive of the Minister, the quota was again suspended and the date of hearing of the appeal was advanced from 12th June 1974 to the 5th June 1974, in spite of the protest of the lawyer appearing for the petitioner. The learned lawyer complained that he was not in a position to represent his client's case on the 5th June 1914, as the client, not being aware of the accelerated date, had not given the papers back to him. The Deputy Director Food, on this objection, adjourned the case to the next day, i,e, the 6th June 1974, but vacated the stay order earlier issued by him on the ground that since the Minister had ordered that no quota should be issued to the petitioner till the submission of the report to him, the stay order had become infructuous.
5. ' The petitioner came to the High Court to challenge the above orders of the Minister and the Deputy Director Food in the writ jurisdiction. The petition came up for hearing on the 6th June 1974, when a report was called for from the Government of the Punjab.
6. ' In the report submitted by the District Food Controller to the High Court mention was again made of the direction of the Minister dated 31-5-1974.
7. ' The writ petition came up for hearing again on the 20th June 1974, when it was admitted for regular hearing and the orders of the Deputy Director Food dated the 6th June 1974, and the order vacating the earlier order dated 25-5-74 were suspended ad-Interim.
8. During the pendency of the writ in the High Court, the appeal before the Deputy Director Food was taken up for hearing and dismissed on 18th July 1974, i,e,, two days before the ad-interim order was made by the High Court in the writ petition. The petitioner then filed a Misc. Application No, 4/74 in the High Court questioning the validity of the dismissal of the appeal on 18-7-74. Yet the petitioner took no steps to amend his writ petition in the High Court in order to challenge the order dismissing his appeal.
9. ' The writ petition came up for final hearing on 14-11-1974, and was dismissed. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
10. ' It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter and to supersede the order of the Deputy Director Food who had suspended the order of the District Food Controller withholding the quota of his depot.
11. ' The High Court, it is said, had also failed to notice that the orders made subsequently by the Deputy Director Food and by the District Food Controller were not passed as free agents but under the behest of the Minister. Therefore, those orders were clearly without lawful authority.
12. ' As regards the disposal of the appeal on the 18th July, 1974, it is pointed out that the petitioner had appeared before the Deputy Director, Food on the 13th July 1974, and pointed out to him that he had already moved the High Court in the writ jurisdiction and that his writ petition had been admitted. Nevertheless, the Deputy Director Food did not agree to keep the matter pending till the disposal of the writ in the High Court.
13. ' The High Court has taken the view that since the petitioner did not amend his petition in the High Court or obtain an order for the stay of proceedings before the Deputy Director Food during the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, he cannot now complain if the Deputy Director Food has disposed of his appeal. The Deputy Director Food had every jurisdiction to do so and it cannot be said that he had acted mala fide.
14. It appears that the petitioner himself had abandoned his appeal and did not care to appear at the hearing of the appeal on 18-7-74. It is, therefore, his fault that he took no steps either to stop the proceeding before the Deputy Director Food or to have his case properly represented before him.
15. ' As regards the order of the Minister, the High Court has taken the view that it was an order without lawful authority, because, it was made without hearing any party. In any event, since this was only an ad-interim order, nothing much turned upon it. The final order in this case was the order of the Deputy Director Food dated 18-7-74, and it cannot he said that this order was made at the behest of the Minister.
16. It seems to us that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court was right in taking the view that the petitioner himself was in default in not either getting the proceedings in the appeal stayed or contesting the appeal itself properly. The final order in the appeal was an order passed with jurisdiction and, therefore, could not be interfered with in writ proceedings.
17. ' This petition is, accordingly dismissed.