1. MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, C J: --This Constitutional petition has been filed seeking following relief:- - "It is therefore, prayed that orders dated 16-2-1994 and subsequently fixation of prices with effect from 8th March 1994 passed by respondents may kindly be declared illegal unlawful arbitrary having no legal effect and consequence and without jurisdiction. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed. Costs of petition may also be awarded."
2. Petitioners deal in business of selling chicken, broilers, eggs and fish etc. It is their grievance that while fixing prices of poultry etc. Local administration and District Price Committee has ignored original purchase value including expenses incurred by them for receiving said commodities for sale in Quetta Town.
3. Pre-admission notice facilitated District Magistrate to explain the facts. He pointed out that prices were fixed for the public benefit, in consultation with representative of petitioners after giving due consideration to all aspects including requirement of law and established practice. These steps were taken in good faith for Community interest to ensure that consumers may not suffer from arbitrary or whimsical enhancement by the dealers.
4. Mr. Mohsin Javed, learned counsel for petitioners strenuously urged that Pakistan Poultry Association alone was competent to fix rates or make changes for increase, due to fluctuation of rates in the market. According to him variation in rates also depends upon demand of particular commodity by the public. Learned counsel contended that poultry and other items are purchased mainly from Karachi or Sukur, therefore, petitioners are entitled to sell the same after striking reasonable profit. He maintained that prices fixed by local administration were extremely less than prevalent rates at Karachi. He further argued that under the provisions of Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoardings Act, 1977 District Magistrate was not empowered to fix. Prices for poultry items.
5. Learned Advocate-General in reply to above contentions canvassed that fixation of reasonable rates by local administration was for the benefit of general public. Additionally provision of law and Notification issued by competent authority coupled with established practice, District Price Committee has been regulating prices concerning different commodities of daily use consumed by general public. He stressed that neither any mala fide exists nor ulterior motive has been attributed against Local Administration in fixing current rates. Lastly he contended that petition indirectly aimed at seeking undue gains which therefore, cannot be allowed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
6. We have considered arguments advanced. By learned counsel for parties. It is quite apparent that Local Administration or District Price Committee performs their duties for fixation of reasonable price of edibles in the general benefit of `public considering views from cross section of Society.
7. Obviously on the basis of law and established practices a moderate check must be allowed to control arbitrary enhancement of rates on edibles and other goods of daily use.
8. Learned Advocate-General urged that on the pretext of fluctuation in rates, dealers unjustifiably keep .Increasing prices of different commodities causing public alarm. Therefore, prices of various items have been fixed by the concerned authorities lawfully.
9. It cannot be overlooked that change in prices may occasion due to artificial shortage, hoarding or financial stringency. But we fail to understand phenomenon adopted by petitioners for automatic price hike, on the pretext that purchase value has increased. It gives rise to a question, whether dealers of various commodities, merely pleading fluctuation of rates can whimsically demand higher prices than existing one, without being mindful of its adverse effects to daily wager, common man, or general public. While dealers demand their effective participation and representation when prices control rates are issued, they must have corresponding obligation of giving prior notice to consumers and local administration before prices are changed. They should not grudge necessity of moderate check before existing rates are enhanced. Every system to properly regulate the affairs postulates checks and balances. How can it be deemed fair or reasonable that dealers may vary prices without constraints desiring to have unbridled price increase from current rates. It is strange when their arbitrary actions regarding limitless price spiral is checked they express grievance about the same. Therefore, question would arise, whether such paradoxical approach is equitable and relief sought for can be granted by invoking jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. We are conscious that State has legal, moral and Constitutional obligations to ensure supply of goods for general utility to people on moderate rates.
10. District Magistrate and public functionaries assigned duties under various enactments being agents of State must necessarily ensure fulfilment of said objectives. The consumers cannot be left entirely at the mercy of business Community or their self-styled Association who are unfortunately fixing prices at their whims and .Caprice. The poor and needy who lack the means to provide themselves with basic minimum necessities but unfettered intermittent increase is making their lives more miserable. In such circumstances remedial measures can be legitimately adopted. We feel that to meet unjustified price hike drastically affecting general consumers, District Magistrate apart from authority prescribed under Balochistan Safety Regulation, 1947 enjoys inherent powers to check unreasonable or arbitrary increase of rates.
11. District Magistrate has explained in the comments that, Fish, Mutton, Beef, Eggs, Poultry feed etc. Are covered by Schedule of Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoardings Act, 1977.
12. Therefore, its prices could be reasonably controlled and regulated by the competent forum. It is not disputed that representatives of petitioners were. Also heard before current fixation of prices.
13. Therefore, grievances if any stood resolved. It may be seen that controversy is not merely control of prices but check towards intended whimsical enhancement of rates by the dealers at their own choice. Efforts of Local Administration appear that unjustifiable increase from existing rate should be restrained. The steps in that behalf are suggestive of bona fides.
14. With above discussed background it requires examination whether, such petition is at all maintainable. It may be seen that on previous occasions when rates were fixed by Local Administration for selling poultry, eggs, fish, etc. In Jumma Bazar, Divisional Bench of this Court had declined to grant relief. Legal and factual position being identical, ratio decidendi of previous petition is fully applicable to the instant case. It is profitable to reproduce para. 5 of judgment passed in Constitution Petition No 50 of 1989 (Haji Muhammad, Farooq and others v. District Magistrate, Quetta and others):-- "5.Evidently respondents have not fixed any rate so far. Therefore, petition to the extent of probable, threat of taking action in future is not maintainable. Accordingly reference to reported case Pakistan Mine Owners Association and others v. District Magistrate, Quetta and others (PLD 1979 Quetta 160) is inapt. Whereas, regarding efforts of respondents for perusing the petitioners to participate in Jumma Bazar, it may be observed that same is obviously for public interest and general benefits of the citizens. No mala fide intention for doing so has at all been attributed to respondents in this behalf. It is well settled that remedy by way of writ is -of discretionary nature. Its main object is to rectify the wrong and promote the justice.. It is thus obligatory for the party invoking this discretionary power of the Court to, essentially approach with clean hands. His conduct should reflect fair play and anxiety for common benefits of majority. He should not be aiming to contravene law or in any way affecting rights or privileges of people at large. Therefore, discretionary relief can only be used to cure manifest illegalities, but not to promote injustice or exploitation of people-at large. Apparently the object of petitioners by avoiding to participate Juma Bazar appears to merely make undue gains and frustrate efforts of administration to provide necessities - of life to people at the moderate rates. Even otherwise petitioners have not been able to establish violation of any law or vested rights. In a recent judgment: Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166) considering equitable principle and secretionary nature of relief provided by Constitutional remedy Hon'ble Supreme Court in spite of bolding order of dissolution of National and Provincial Assemblies as without lawful authority, in the large interest of public and nation denied the main relief concerning restoration of Assemblies. Similarly in case Ghulam ,;Sarwar Awan v. Government of Sindh (PLD 1988 Kar. 144)
15. Divisional Bench of Sindh High Court has observed that even if impugned order was found to be illegal, Court may decline to press into service its Constitutional jurisdiction if doing so; instead of advancing interest of justice or public good, tends to defeat the same."
16. It is well settled that Division Bench expressing opinion on identical issue of law or fact is bound to follow the same. In this behalf observations of honourable Supreme Court in case The Province of East Pakistan v. Dr. Azizul Islam (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 296) are sufficiently instructive.
17. For the foregoing reasons we find no substances in the petition and decline to grant discretionary relief to petitioners. Consequently petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.