1. ' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---The case of petitioners is that they were allowed licence under Article 18 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 by respondent No,3 for sale of wine, liquor and other intoxicants to the non muslim inhabitants. The copy of licence is Annexure "A". The petitioners are running their business at Mirpur Mathelo since 1991-92 and their licence is being renewed by respondents Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners have never violated the law and the Rules framed under Prohibition Order. One Mukhi Sarwanand, an Ex.M.P.A. During the year 1991 was also granted licence under Article 18 of the Order in the name of his relative, respondent No,5 for the sale of liquor and wine at Town Matli, District Badin. Due to protest launched by the people of said town against the grant of such licence, respondent No,5 could not run the business there.
2. Thereafter, above named Ex-M.P.A. Got transferred the above licence to Ubauro town. Later on respondent No,5 through the influence of Mukhi Sarwanand has succeeded in getting the above licence transferred to Mirpur Mathelo without calling objections or issuing the notice as prescribed under the. Prohibition and Excise Rules and bye-laws. According to the petitioners there was no demand from people of the area or vicinity for opening of such shop and as such the opening of shop at Mirpur Mathelo by respondent No,5 is in violation of rules, laws and Articles 18, 37(h) and also against the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
3. ' Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed parawise comments wherein they have vehemently denied the contentions of the petitioners and further submitted that the procedure as laid down in the Rules has been adopted and the objections were called from public by pasting the notices in the office of S. D.M., S.H.O. And Municipal Committee Mirpur Mathelo after wide publicity. According to the respondents the population of the area has increased in comparison to year 1991 when the licence was granted to the petitioners. There is denial of violation of the fundamental rights. The licence has been granted and premises approved after observing required and prescribed legal formalities. According to the respondents, the opening of new shop will discourage monopoly of the petitioners as well. Petitioners seem to be ambitious of their own business and do not like fair competition in the business; that licence was granted by Director-General, Excise and Taxation Karachi after complying with all the prescribed legal formalities. Licence fee stands recovered and site plan approved. Moreover, the required legal procedure as provided under paragraph 100 of the Excise Manual has been adopted. Mirpur Mathelo is not a small town and besides this town, Hindu community is living in quite sufficient number in the towns of Khanpur Mahar, Jarwar, Yaro Lund and Garhi Chakar.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Bhajandas who contended that the licence was transferred and shop was opened at Mirpur Mathelo without making wide publicity and without pasting notices on different places and that before transferring the shop and licence, inquiry as envisaged by paragraph 100 of Excise Manual was not conducted by the authority and the people of the area have also made protest against the opening of the shop.
5. ' Mr. Abdul Ghani Shaikh learned counsel for respondent No,5 submitted that the licence was granted by the competent Authority after observing all the necessary formalities. Objections were invited from the public and notices were pasted at the conspicuous places such as office of the S.D.M., Police Station and the Municipal Committee Mirpur Mathelo but no citizen filed objections. He submitted that there will be fair .Competition in the business after opening of new shop. He contends that petitioners want monopoly and this petition has been filed with ulterior motive so as to harass the respondent No,5. He further stated that shop of respondent No,5 stands desealed and was allowed to function normally by Director-General Excise and Taxation Sindh, Karachi vide order, dated 13-11-1996 which was filed by Mr. Abdul Chani Shaikh learned counsel for respondent No,5 through statement, dated 16-11-1998. It is also pleaded that shop of respondent. No,5 is functioning since 1996 without any hindrance, obstacle or complaint whatsoever. Lastly it was contended that there is no violation of Articles 18 and 37(h).
6. ' Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafri learned A.A.-G. Also submitted that petition is filed by the petitioners with mala fide intention so that they may keep monopoly over the sale of liquor and wine whereas if both the shops are allowed to run, there will be healthy competition which will be in the interest of the local public. According to learned A.A.-G. The respondents have complied with the legal formalities and there is no violation of paragraph 100 of Excise Manual.
7. ' We have gone through the material placed with the case. For the just decision of this petition it will be pertinent to refer to the relevant portion of paragraph 100 of the Sindh Excise Manual which reads as under:-- "The previous sanction of the Government must be obtained for the establishment of new shops for the sale of country liquor (including toddy) to reign liquor and intoxicating drugs. But before applying for the Government sanction each Collector has to follow the procedure ordered by Government Resolution, Revenue Department, No,8281, dated the 30th October, 1889, and the Government Circular, Revenue Department No,835-B, dated the 19th July, 1941, viz-- (1 To carefully consider the application in, all its bearings such as the, proximity of other shops at the locality, the distance of the village from the neighbouring foreign territory where the intoxicant is easily procurable and the chances whether, if a shop were not opened, the people would resort to illicit distillation or smuggling."
8. ' Since learned counsel for petitioners in his arguments had referred to Articles 18 and 37(h) of the Constitution, the same are also reproduced hereunder: "18. Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business: ' Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent---
(a) the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system; or
(b) the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the interest of free competition therein; or
(c) the carrying on, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons."
9. Perusal of the above provisions, does not show any violation on the part of official respondents. The petitioners cannot be granted the relief sought in this petition. A Consequently we are of the firm opinion that this petition is devoid of merits and dismiss the same in limine along with the listed application.
10. ' On 6-4-1999 this petition was dismissed by short order. Above are the reasons for the same.