1. ' SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.--The petitioners through the petition have claimed the following reliefs:-
(i) quash the order dated 6-1-1977 of the respondent No,l.
(ii) declare that the show-cause notice dated 942-1986 is without lawful authority;
(iii) declare that the said drug is validly registered;
(iv) pending adjudication of this petition, suspend the operation of the impugned order; and
(v) pending adjudication of this petition, restrain the respondents, their subordinates, agents, or any other person acting under their authority from implementing/acting upon the impugned order.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that on 17-11-1976 the respondents, in .Exercise of powers under section 7 of the Drugs Act 1976, registered Disflatyl Tablets on the application of Ispi Corporation Ltd. The said drug is manufactured by Messrs Solco Basle Limited of CH-4127 Birsfelden, Switzerland a major International Pharmaceutical Company. Ispi Corporation were the sole agents of the said drug in Pakistan. On 27-2-1981, Messrs Solco Basle Limited appointed the petitioners as their sole agent for Pakistan. Intimation in this regard was made by Ispi Corporation to the Ministry of Health vide letter dated 17-3-1981. On 21-10-1981, the petitioners applied to the respondents for the renewal/transfer of Registration of the said drugs. This application was granted. .
3. ' The case of the petitioners as set out in the petition is that the Deputy Director issued a show- cause notice dated 22-5-1986 to the petitioners directing them to arrange for the local manufacture of the said drug claiming that its substitutes were being adequately manufactured in Pakistan. It was also stated that failure to comply with the direction would lead to the respondent considering the said drug for deregistration. The petitioners agreed in principle, to the local manufacture of the said drug and sought time from the respondent to submit a work plan and schedule for the local manufacture of the said drug. (Copies of the show-cause notice and reply thereto are annexed to the petition as Annexure 'D' and 'E').
4. ' The petitioners informed the respondents by their letter dated 27-7-1986 of the formal negotiations, in respect of the local manufacture of the said drug, between the petitioner Messrs Solco Bask (whose representative came to Pakistan) and a local manufacturer and the impending finalization of the manufacturing agreement. The petitioners also informed the respondents that the locally manufactured drug would be available in the market about four months after the grant of licence of manufacture and that they would be applying for the licence to manufacture the said drug by the end of the year 1986. The petitioners had applied for removal of registration of the said drug vide letter dated 12-11-1986. The Secretary of the Drugs Registration Board issued a show- cause notice dated 9-12-1986 calling upon the petitioners as to why the registration of the said drug should not be cancelled. The respondents also stated therein that it had been decided that the said drug was "no longer safe" and thus the import was not desired in the larger public interest".
5. The petitioners sought time to file a suitable reply by the end of January 1987, on account of the late receipt on 29-12-1986, as a consequence of the curfew and disturbances in Karachi and offices of the principal were closed for Christmas and New Year from 24-12-1986 to 2-1-1987. The Assistant Drugs Controller informed the petitioners of the decision of the respondents not to renew the registration of the said drugs under Rule 27 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registering and Advertising)
6. Rules, 1976. It was stated that the said drug was adequately manufactured locally and the import was not desired in the larger public interest. The petitioners filed an appeal being Appeal No,148 of 1987 before the Drugs Appellate Board. The appeal was pending when the above petition was filed.
7. In these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this petition.
8. ' Mr.M. Shahudul Haq, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioners had alternate remedy available to them under the law against the impugned order under Rule 4 of the Dr (Appellate Board) Rules, 1976 which they had already availed. Rule 4 is in the following terns:- "4. Procedure for Appeal.---(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Registration Board, the Central Licensing Board pr a licensing Authority may, within sixty days of receipt of such decision, submit an appeal to the Appellate Board."
9. ' The above provision of Rule 4 provide an appeal in respect of the order passed by Deputy Drugs Controller. We are of the view that existence of an alternate remedy, if any, in the present case will not come in the way of the petitioners for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The existence of the alternate remedy is not a bar on the powers of this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution but it only regulates the proceedings of this Court. For in cases where the alternate remedy is not equally efficacious or speedy or where the order impugned on the face of it is patently illegal or without lawful authority or suffers from such legal infirmities which are apparent on the face of the order, the Court may, in spite of existence of alternate remedy, exercise its jurisdiction under Article 199 and grant the relief to the aggrieved party in such circumstances. In the present case even if we agree with the learned, Standing Counsel that there existed alternate remedy, the same is not efficacious in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The preliminary objection is overruled.
10. ' Mr. Mushtaq Memon Advocate has raised the following contentions:-
1. That there is denial of an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed.
11. Reliance was placed on three decisions in support of the petitioner's stand that natural justice required an opportunity of being heard to be extended before the impugned order was passed.
12. The first case relied upon in this respect is Messrs Faridsons Ltd. And another v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1961 SC 537). That was a case where the licence of Mews Faridsons to act as an importer and exporter was suspended without any prior notice, which action was held to be illegal by the Supreme Court inter alia on the ground that no person shall be condor-and unheard and that the above suspension was in violation of the above principle of natural justice. It was observed by Cornelius, J. That, I found that the proceedings are judicial if the matter has to be decided on evidence produced and after opportunity to the person concerned to meet the case against, him, and the determination can form the basis of an order entailing civil consequences to a party.'
13. ' The other case is Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan Mazari and 3 others v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission Islamabad and 4 others (PLD 1977 lab. 461). Federal Laud Commission passed an order under Regulation 115 of the Martial Law Regulations. The order was challenged in Const.
14. Petition. Mr. Mushtaq Hassain J. Observed:- "The purpose of the issuance of notice to a party whose rights are to be determined is that he should not be condemned unheard. Hearing of course requires that the person to be heard should be in the know.Of the case that he has to meet. So far as the principles of natural justice are concerned, therefore, the requirment has been amply fulfilled; now for the law itself."
15. ' The third case is of Zeb Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Registration Board (1988 MID 2149). This case was under Drugs Act, 1975. The Registration Board recalled registration of drug earlier granted to the petitioner. Mr. Ljaz Nisar, J. Of Lahore High Court held that The respondents could not recall it on the principle of locus poenitentia. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before recalling the registration granted to the petitioner."
16. ' The other contention of Mr.Muslataq Memon was that the impugned order was not supported by reasons. It, is incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Deputy Drugs Controller arising from show-cause notice directing the petitioner to arrange for the local manufacture of the said drug claiming that its substitutes were being adequately manufactured in Pakistan and failure to comply with the direction would lead the respondents considering the drug for deregistration were quasi-judicial proceedings. This is not disputed by Mr. M.S. Shahudul Haq. It is now well-settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons.
17. But unfortunately the Deputy Drugs Controller did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him.
18. ' The last contention of Mr. Mushtaq Memon is that the show-causenotice was issued, directing the petitioner to manufacture its local manufacturing itself (sic) or through third party and the registration was cancelled on the ground that the said drug was adequately manufactured, locally and the import was not desired in the larger interest. It was submitted by Mr. Mushtaq that if the intention was to cancel registration in quesion on the ground of local manufacture and was not desired in larger interest then such ground should have been alleged specifically and categorically in the show-cause notice to enable the petitioners to defend themselves on that ground. This contention is well founded. We are of the view that the order of refusal to renew the registration of show-cause notice on the ground advising the petitioners to manufacture locally, which ground has not specifically been mentioned in the notice, therefore, petitioners were prejudiced and could not defend properly on that ground.
19. ' For the aforesaid reasons the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6-1-1987 is hereby set aside. However, in case the respondents intend to decline to renew the registration, may issue fresh show-cause notice and take further steps, if necessary, strictly in accordance with law.