' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos, 6781/92, 6962/92, 6963/92, 6943/92, 6965/92, 6960/92, 6959/92, 6958/92, 6957/92, 6955/92, 6954/92, 6953/92, 6950/92, 6949/92, 6942/92, 7713/92 and 7714/92, in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. There is no dispute as regards the facts which are that the petitioners were granted money lender's licnece under section 3 of the Punjab Money Lenders Ordinance XXIX of 1960, on 20th October, 1966. This licence was renewed from time to time and remained valid up to 29th August, 1987. Earlier on 6th March, 1991, the petitioner had applied to the District Collector, Lahore, for the renewal of the said licence. Strangely, the said application remained pending for a long time. It was ultimately rejected by the Collector on 20th June, 1992, who further directed that criminal case be registered against the petitioner under section 19 of the Money Lenders Ordinance, as he had conducted the business, during the aforesaid period of time, without any valid licence.
3. This order, as already indicated, has been assailed in this petition. Two contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, that the refusal to renew the licence is illegal and unlawful and secondly, that a direction to register a criminal case against the petitioner is without any lawful authority.
4. As regards the first contention, it is conceded by all the learned counsel that the provisions of the Punjab Money Lenders Ordinance No, XXIX of 1960 have been declared as being repugnant to Holy Qur'an and Sunnah by the Federal Shariat Court in Dr. Mahmood-ur-Rehman, Faisal and others v.
Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others (PLD 1992 FSC 1). The effect of such delcaration as envisaged by Article 203-D (3)(b) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is that the aforesaid law ceased to exist from the day when the order of the Federal Shariat Court was to operate, which in the present case was 30th June, 1992, as specified in para. 3 of the A aforesaid judgment. That being so, the question of nenewal of licence in favour of the petitioner does not arise.
5. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is equally unfounded.
Although it is correct that under section 3 (5) of the Punjab Money Lenders' Ordinance, if an application is made before the expiry of the period, for renewal of license, during the pendency of the application, the licensee is entitled to carry on business by deeming clause contained in this petition. But this right is hedged with the condition that an application for renewal of the licence must have been made before the expiry of the period of licence. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that such an application was indeed filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the petitioner is in possession of some documents to show that such an application was made by him in time. This assertion is disputed by the learned Additional Advocate-General, who states that in the application for renewal filed by the petitioner on 6th of March, 1991, he admitted that he did not file any application earlier.
6. Be that as it may, this factual controversy between the parties, cannot be resolved in these proceedings. If the petitioner had indeed applied for renewal of the licence before the expiry of his licence, it is open to him to point it out to Investigating Agency or the Court concerned, as the case may be.
' For the reasons aforesaid, these petitions are dismissed, with no orders as to costs.