This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petition No. 7767 of 1993 as common questions of law and facts have been raised in both of them.
2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 in spite of service, therefore, he is hereby proceeded against ex parte. Usman Mahmood, L.D.C. is present on behalf of respondent No. 1 and says that respondent No. 1 has proceeded abroad to perform Haj.
3. 1 am not inclined to adjourn this case. The petitioner is aggrieved of an order passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to clear two out of five batches of the drugs imported by it from Denmark.
Respondent No. 1 was directed to file comments as it was not clear in the said order as to on what grounds the petitioner-Company was declined the permission to clear the remaining two batches of the drugs. In the comments it was revealed that the same was declined on the ground that according to the decision the clearance of those drugs of which the remaining period 6f expiry is less than 75 % of the total period should not be cleared.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 23 of the Drugs Act, 1976 which provide that any drug of which the expiry period had not expired could be imported. In view of the provision of section 23 of the Drugs Act, respondent No. 1 could not decline permission to the petitioner-- Company to clear any drug of which the period of expiry had not been completed as was the present case, therefore, the reliance on the instructions as against the express provisions of section 23 of the Act, could not have been made.
5.Before closing the judgment a mention may be made that C.M. No. 1917/93 under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. was moved by Mrs. Hamida Ismail etc. for impleading them as party in the writ petition whereas C. M. No. 1927/93 has been moved by them for amendment of the said earlier petition as regards figures of paid-up capital and number of shares held by the said applicants. In the former petition the applicants have raised grievances against Mr. Irfan Umar the Chief Executive of the writ petitioner --Company and they have also raised a question regarding authority of Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Director of writ petitioner-Company to file the writ petition. It appears from the said application that there is some dispute between the shareholders of the company i.e. the writ petitioner inter se. The writ petition is concerned only with the import of drugs and their clearance.
It has not been stated in the application that Mr. Irshad Ahmad was not the Director of the Company and status of Mr. Irfan Umar as Chief Executive of the Company has also been admitted.
The clearance of the drugs is for the benefit of the writ petitioner-company of which the applicants are the share holders, therefore, they are neither necessary nor proper party in these proceedings.
If they have any dispute with the other shareholders of the 'Company regarding the affairs of the Company regarding the affairs of the Company they may seek remedy in accordance with law and get them settled through independent proper proceedings, therefore, I am not inclined to adjourn the case on the ground that Mr. Salim Sahgal, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicants has been granted general adjournment and has gone abroad because in the order granting general adjournment to him the learned Chief Justice has made it clear that the same would not be applicable to a case in which the Court had itself fixed the date. Vide order dated 23-4-1994 this case was fixed for today.
6. For the foregoing reasons the impugned order dated 12-7-1993 passed by respondent No. 1 of withholding the permission to the petitioner for clearance of disputed drugs is hereby declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The writ petition is accepted in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.