' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above petitions for leave to appeal which are directed against interlocutory orders passed upon miscellaneous application by the respondent in the Constitution petitions filed by them in the High Court. It will suffice to reproduce one of the interlocutory orders, which reads as follows:- "Learned DAG. Seeks time to file counter-affidavit or objections and by consent the hearing is adjourned to 24-6-1993.
' In the meanwhile and subject to the final disposal of this application the consignment may be released by the respondents on payment of admitted amount of Customs duty and other charges and in respect of the disputed amount on furnishing the Bank Guarantee in consonance with Article 199 (4) of the Constitution with 14% mark up to the satisfaction of Collector of Customs (Preventive) Customs House, Karachi."
2. From the statement of facts filed by the petitioners at pages 79 to 81 of C.P. No, 330-K of 1993, it appears that except in three cases in all cases, ex-bond bills of entry were filed by 13-6-1993 and barring in six cases, the admitted amount of customs duty was deposited by 20-6-1993.
3. Prima facie, the notifications which were issued under sections 18 and 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act, prior to the Finance Act, 1993, would be applicable to those cases in which bills of entry were filed by 13-6-1993 and the customs duty was deposited within the permissible period of one week. However, the consignments in respect of which ex-bond bills of entry were filed after 13-6-1993, the relevant notification applicable would be the notification holding the field on the date when the customs duty became payable.
4. The case of the respondents/petitioners in the above petition is that the notifications issued by the Federal Government under sections 18 and 19 of the Act do not specify the dates of their application and, therefore, the same are null and void and no recovery can be made under the same; whereas the case of the petitioners/respondents is that if no contrary date is mentioned in the relevant notification, the date of the Gazette Notification would be the relevant date.
5. Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, learned Deputy Attorney-General, who has appeared on Court notice, has relied upon the following judgments in support of the latter proposition:--
(i) A.M. Sheikh v. National Refinery Limited and another (1990 CLC 479);
(ii) Ameer v. Rab Nawaz and others (1990 SCM R 218);
(iii) Muhammad Suleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani (PLD 1978 SC 190); ' Mr. Abul Khair Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has referred to the case of Mannalal Lachhiram v. Manakchand (AIR 1950 Madhya Bharat 119).
' Whereas Mr. Sharaf Faridi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators, has referred to the case of The State v. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1976 SC 390) and the case of Ramjilal and others v.
Municipal Committee, Piparia (AIR 1959 Madhya Pradesh 82).
6. Since the above point will be in issue before the High Court in the Constitution petitions pending before it, we would not like to express our views on the above controversy. The other question before us is, as to whether the above interlocutory order is just and proper or the High Court should have directed the respondents to deposit the disputed amount in cash with the Nazir of the Court instead of Bank Guarantee. In Civil Petition No, 328-K of 1993, we had passed the following interlocutory order:-- "However, it will be open to the respondent to get the consignment released on depositing the disputed amount with Nazir of the High Court, who will invest the above amount with M/s. Habib Bank Limited, Court Branch, Karachi in Khas Deposit Certificates encashable on short notice. The party, who will be entitled to the above amount shall be entitled to the profits /thereon."
7. In order to maintain consistency, we are inclined to pass similar order in the above petitions for leave to appeal. We would, therefore, convert the above petitions into appeals and would dispose of the same by ordering that the respondents shall deposit the disputed amount with the Nazir of the High Court in respect of the consignments which are covered by the writ petitions and were subject-matters of the interlocutory orders as a condition for getting the consignments released. If they have already got the consignments released against Bank Guarantees, the same shall be substituted by the cash deposit with the Nazir within a period of two weeks. The Nazir of the High Court will invest the amounts so deposited after obtaining order from the Division Bench concerned and after notice to the parties.
8. Since there may be many other cases involving the above legal point, the High Court may dispose of the Constitution petitions at an early date.