' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the High Court of Sindh had justifiably by its judgment denied relief to the appellant in spite of recording a finding substantially in favour of the appellant.
2. The appellant is a limited company manufacturing textile products at their mill situate in Kotri Sindh, It. Was established after obtaining permission from the Ministry of Industries on 21-12-1980.
On 12-12-1982, the appellant addressed a request to the Director, Textile Commissioners Organizations seeking 'No Objection Certificate' for the import of equipments for initial installation.
His application mentioned at more than one place the import of machinery for initial installation as would appear from its letter reproduced hereunder:- "ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING UNDER "PAYEE" SCHEME ' ISSUANCE OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FOR THE IMPORT OF EQUIPMENTS FOR INITIAL INSTALLATION ' With reference to the above, we have to inform you that we wish to import following items for the initial installation in our new unit at Kotri.
' VOLKMANN TWO-FOR-ONE TWISTER TYPE VTS-07 WITH 144 SPINDLES, BAUART 3.17 MACHINES ' TO INCLUDE 2 x 3-1/4" FEED PACKAGE AND 6" TRAVERSE AT THE TAKE UP 5 57', CONICITY.
' We enclose herewith two copies of Pro forma Invoice for your perusal and record.
' We would therefore request you to please issue us your No-Objection Certificate at your earliest to enable us to obtain import licence from the office of the Controller of Imports and Exports and to open letter of credit."
3. It was granted required permission by the letter dated 28-12-1988, the concluding portion of the permission mentioning as hereunder:-- "You are therefore, advised to approach the Controller of Imports & Exports, Government of Pakistan, Karachi in the matter. Please note that the said recommendation is subject to the payment of custom duty and sales tax ordinarily leviable at the time of its import."
4. The machinery arrived in Pakistan on 14-5-1983 and the same day the appellant made a request as hereunder:- "We further beg to state that you have already issued the recommendation letter No, TEX/COM/8 (273)/ 80-IV dated 28th December, 1982 for the import of 5 Sets of Two for One Twister for initial installation but the equipment in question are for balancing and thus the letter of recommendation may please be modified for the import of "5 Sets of Volk-mann Two for One Twister Type VTS-07" for Balancing.
' The equipment have been imported for balancing of our unit, we shall be grateful if you kindly issue us the normal exemption certificate under S.R.O. 702 (1)/80 dated 26th June, 1980."
' This request was turned down by the Deputy Director on behalf of the Textile Commissioner by informing the appellant as hereunder:- "I am directed to refer to your letter No, GL-83/ PR/OE/379 dated 14-5-1983 on the above subject and to say that the case was considered by the Scrutinising Committee held on 16-5-1981 which did not approve issue of certificate under S.R.O. 702(1)/80 as the mill has not completed its 3 years working. It is therefore regretted that the requisite certificate cannot be issud."
5. A Constitution Petition was then filed challenging the order of the Textile Commissioner denying it the concessional treatment to which it considered itself entitled under S.R.O. 702(I)/80 dated 26-6- 1980. The High Court denied the relief to the appellant on three grounds even though with regard to the merits of the case the High Court concluded as hereunder:- "Condition about completion of working for 3 years by a unit, before being entitled to import machinery or equipment under BMR system, does not appear in S.R.O. 702(1)/80. Moreover there does not appear legal sanction for enforcing such condition. Hence there is force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in respect of this condition."
6. The first reason was that the High Court gained the impression that the appellant had not come to the Court with clean hands inasmuch as it did not disclose in its Constitution Petition that it had applied for import of the machinery in question with the purpose of "Initial Installation" or that the Import Permit issued to it specified that the machinery was being imported for "Initial Installation".
The second reason was that all conditions required to be filled under S.R.O. 702(1)/80 were not shown to have been in fact satisfied. Thirdly, according to the judgment, there was acquiescence on the part of the appellant in the matter as it itself applied for the import of machinery for initial installation and obtained a licence prominently mentioning that fact.
7. So far as the conduct of the appellant in claiming the relief is concerned, our attention has been drawn to para. 2 of the Constitution Petition wherein the copy of the application made to respondent No, 1 and the permission of the respondent were both mentioned and formed a part of the Petition by incorporation having been annexed with it as Annexure-I and Annexure-II respectively. In paragraph 5, the appellant had stated as hereunder, in the Constitution Petition:- "That initially the petitioners, under a misconception, had imported the said machinery under an import licence endorsed to be for initial installation. However, the petitioners subsequently realised that the same machinery should properly have been imported under B.M.R. Scheme and therefore, applied to the Respondent No, 1 for issuance of the requisite certificate under S.R.O. 702(1)/80."
' This in fact amounted to a complete, and truthful disclosure of the facts and a denial of relief could not take place on the ground that the appellant had not come with clean hands.
8. The question of acquiescence will not arise in the case. In a country where the rate of literacy is so low and the openness of the administration does not exist the consequential unawareness of the rules, regulations and statutory notifications at times has to be taken note of and necessary consideration for it to be shown. Notwithsanding the mistake that it committed, if on facts and under the law a benefit pecuniary in nature was available to it the statutory authority should have examined its admissibility on merits, just as by mentioning a wrong provision of the law or addressing the application to an inappropriate officer in the same hierarchy a person does not lose his right to get a relief under the law. Such mistake should have not weighed to heavily on the appellant. Acquiescence as legally understood does not take place where its root and basis are ignorance or unawareness of ones own rights and entitlements.
9. It was not for the High Court but for the statutory authority to determine as to whether the requirement of S.R.O. 702(1)/80 was satisfied in the case at all or not. The reason given in the letter reproduced above namely that the Mill had not completed its three years working is a non- statutory, extraneous and an irrelevant consideration. It could not have been advanced at all.
10. In the circumstances and for the reasons given we accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the Scrutiny Committee for dealing with it in accordance with the law on the subject. No order is made as to costs.