' Z. A. CHANNA , J.-This constitutional petition is directed against the action of the second respondent, S. H.
0. Perumal Police Station, sealing a godown, containing 700 maunds of wheat, which wheat is claimed by the two petitioners. The wheat in question has since been sold by a consent order passed by this Court on 21-3-1974, and the proceeds of the sale have been deposited with the Nazir of this Court.
2. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the petition, is that they had appointed one Khamiso as their Munshi/Manager for looking after and managing their lands. This Khamiso is said to have been also in charge of a godown on the lands of the petitioners, where 700 maunds of wheat were kept. According to the petitioners, for the purposes of seed and consumption of harts. It is alleged that on the 20th of September 1973, the District Magistrate, Sanghar, through a Press Note, required the residents of Sanghar District to declare their stocks of wheat, and accordingly petitioners'
Munshi, Khamiso, submitted a telegraphic declaration of the stocks to the District Magistrate. It is alleged that in spite of the aforesaid declaration, the second respondent seized the petitioners' wheat lying in their godown and sealed the godown. The petitioners' claim that they appeared before the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, in pursuance of a notice issued by the latter, and claimed the wheat in question and requested for its release, but the first respondent, instead of releasing the wheat directed the second respondent to arrest the petitioners' Munshi, Khamiso, and to take action against him under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. It is contended by the petitioners that the action of the two respondents in seizing and sealing their stocks of wheat is not authorized by any law and is illegal.
3. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and also the learned Additional Advocate-General, who appeared for the two respondents. The learned Additional Advocate-General frankly conceded that the second respondent had no authority to seize the wheat or seal the go down in question as the power to seize wheat in respect of which any offence has been committed under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, or the rules and orders issued thereunder, is exercise-able only by a Food Inspector, and the second respondent has not been designated or appointed as a Food Inspector. In view of this position, he concedes that the seizure of the wheat stocks and the sealing of the godown is not in accordance with law and therefore he very fairly concedes that he cannot support this action.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, however, submitted that he is not in a position to state as to whether the petitioners are the rightful owners of the wheat in question. According to him, one Ismail Rajar was prosecuted for being in unauthorized possession of the said wheat stocks and the case against him is still pending. We may, however, point out that according to the petition the petitioners claim that not only the go down in question is located on their lands but they are the owners of the wheat stocks in question. No counter-affidavit has been filed disputing this claim.
Neither Ismail Rajar nor anyone else has come forward to claim the wheat stocks or any share therein. It is unlikely, if there had been any other rightful claimant to the wheat stocks, that he would have kept quiet and not approached this Court to claim the wheat stocks in question, during the period of about three years that this petition has been pending in this Court. Of course, the possibility of a person not claiming the wheat stocks in question in order to save himself from conviction under the Food Control Laws cannot be eliminated. In any case, since no other party has approached this Court with a claim to the wheat stocks in question, in our opinion, it would only be fair that the proceeds of the wheat stocks should be given to the two petitioners, subject of course to any claim that can rightly be made against them by any person who establishes himself to be the lawful owner of the wheat stocks.
5. In the result, we declare the action of the second respondent in seizing the wheat stocks in question and sealing the godown as without lawful authority and would quash the same, and would further order, subject to our observation made in the preceding paragraph, that the proceeds of A the sale of the wheat stocks be delivered to the petitioners. We would accordingly allow the petition to that extent, but in the circumstances of the case would make no order as to costs.