' This judgment shall dispose of the following Writ Petitions:
1. W.P. No,5057 of 1980;
2. W.P. No,10607 of 1980.
3. W.P. No, 10778 of 1980;
4. W.P. No, 11008 of 1980;
5. W.P. No, 11046 of 1980; 6.W.P. No,11048 of 1980; 7.
W.P. No,11071 of 1980;
8. W.P. No, 11198 of 1980;
9. W.P. No, 11199 of 1980;
10. W.P. No,11200 of 1980; 11.W.P.
No, 11201 of 1980; 12.W.P. No, 11363 of 1980.
2. The facts leading to these writ petitions which involve the same question of law arising in identical circumstances, are as follows: Under section 3 of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act (XX of 1958) the Provincial Government may, by notified order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the keeping, storage, movement, transport, supply, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of foodstuffs and trade commerce therein where it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for maintaining supplies thereof or for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair price. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the said provision of law the West . Pakistan (Foodstuffs)
Distribution Order, 1%7 was issued wherein it was provided that with a view to ensuring proper distribution of specified foodstuff in a distribution area, the District Magistrate might, on the recommendation of the District Allotment Board, authorize any person or class of persons or establishment to distribute any specified foodstuff for consumption. It was further provided that the authorization should specify the terms and conditions under which such person or class of persons or establishment should distribute such specified stuff to the consumers. (Vide Paragraph 4 of the West Pakistan (Foodstuffs) Distribution Order, 1967).
3. The petitioners before this Court are depot-holders who have been authorized under the said Order. One of the conditions of their authorization was that, as provided in sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 4 of the Order, it should be preceded by a deposit of cash security by the applicant for the authorization, of a sum of Rs,250 in the case of distribution of foodstuffs in urban areas and a sum of Rs,100 in the case of distribution in the rural areas. When the petitioners applied for authorization, they deposited the required cash security and obtained their authorization. In April, 1980, however, the Governor of the Punjab amended sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 4 of the Order to the effect that the cash security now requited to be deposited is Rs,2,000 and Rs,1,000 for the urban and rural areas respectively. The Notification whereby this amendment has been effected was presumably dated 3-4-1980 although published in the Gazette of Punjab, Extraordinary, dated 12th April, 1980. This amendment was followed by another one gazetted on the 14th July, 1980, whereby a new sub-paragraph (5) was added to Paragraph 4 of the Order, which is as follows:- "(5) In the case of an authorisation issued prior to Government of the Punjab, Food Department's Notification No, SOF (IV) 5 (7)-79 dated 3rd April, 1980, the holder thereof shall make good the deficiency in the cash security provided in sub-clause (4) (1) within a period of six months from the date of the said notification".
' In pursuance of these amendments the Government is now demanding security from the petitioners at the enhanced rates on the pain of cancellation of authorization in case of default.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the amendments are not applicable to them and, therefore, they are under no legal obligation to make good the difference between the sums already deposited by them and the sums required to be deposited in pursuance of the amendments referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the Foodstuffs Distribution Order or any amendments made therein being of the status of a sub-legislative fiat do not have any retrospective effect. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the Government of the Punjab concedes that a Rule or an Order made under the authority of a law cannot be made effective retrospectively unless it has been so authorized specifically by the parent law. But he asserts at the same time that the amendments in question arc not retrospective in effect. A sum of Rs,2,000 or Rs,1,000 as the case may be, is required to be deposited by each depot-holder only for future continuation in force of his authorization. He has further stated on instructions from the Government that in case of default the authorization will not be cancelled but only the security deposit will be forfeited.
5. It is, however, to be noted that the submissions, made by the learned Additional Advocate- General are self-contradictory in terms. Without there being a security deposit, there cannot be a valid authorisation. Therefore, if the amendments in question are held to be valid and the depot holders refuse to make up the deficiency in their security deposits, they will lose their authorization.
There can be no objection to the validity of the amendments if they are applied only to the authorisations to be issued in future, i,e. After the 3rd of April, 1980. But if they are applied to the existing authorizations, the effect will undoubtedly be retrospective. Besides, sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 4 of the Order reads after amendments as follows:- "(4) No authorisation shall be issued unless the applicant first deposits a cash security of:-
(i) (a) two thousand rupees, in the case of distribution of (Specified Foodstuffs) in urban areas; or
(b) one thousand rupees in the case of distribution of (Specified Foodstuffs) in rural area; and ' It should, therefore, be noted that it is necessary only for the "applicant" to deposit a cash security of Rs,2,000 or Rs, 1,000 as the case may be. The petitioners are not applicants for any authorization now. They have already been authorized and they have not made any fresh applications for new authorizations. Therefore, they do not fall under the purview of the amended sub-paragraph (4).
Consequently, the new sub-paragraph (5) is not attracted either, although it specifically refers to authorizations issued prior to the amendment dated 3-4-1980. Unless authorizations issued prior to 3-4-1980 are cancelled for good reasons, the holders thereof cannot be required to deposit any further security for the continued validity of their authorization except by means of an amendment in the law to that effect. From the new sub-paragraph (5) it is clear that the new amendments are intended to be retrospective in effect which having been issued by an Executive Authority as Executive Order or Rule, not authorized by law to be retrospective are invalid to the extent of their retrospectively.
6. For the reasons given above I allow these Writ Petitions and declare the application of the said amendments in paragraph 4 of the West Pakistan (Footstuffs) Distribution Order, 1967, to the petitioners is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs.