1. ' This judgment shall dispose of writ Petitions Nos.7692 of 1999, 10025 of 1999 and 10026 of 1999 as in all of three same question of law and facts are involved. Petitioners who are exporters of knitwear garments have taken exception to the Notification No,SRO 228(1)/94 issued in March, 1994 whereby their earlier right of export of quota has been withdrawn in an arbitrary manner.
2. ' Facts briefly are that export of knitwear garments is regulated under the provision of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as an Act). The Federal Government so as to streamline the export quota earlier issued Notification No .S. R . 0 . 166(1)/92, dated 7-3-1992, under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act. Through this Notification a formal procedure was evolved for the grant of quota to an Exporter for a period effective from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-1996. The basis for allocation of export authorization to performance holders was in the ratio of 50:50 for quality and value. It is pertinent to mention here that prior to this Notification the entire quota was on quantity basis. This new system of allotment of quota boosted the foreign currency earning. The petitioners accordingly invested huge amount so as to secure sophisticated plants and machineries. They received different orders from the buyers in the year 1994. Accordingly, their quota on the basis of aforesaid notification was worked out by the competent Authority and it was duly recorded in their respective quota category pass books on the basis of 50:50 quantity and value.
3. ' Grievance is made through these Constitutional petitions that while process for the export of quota pertaining to the year 1994 was underway, the impugned Notification bearing No,S.R.O(I/94 was issued on 8-3-1994 superseding S.R.O.166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992. In the impugned notification it was also provided that the entitlement of the year 1994 would be determined either on the basis of provisions contained in earlier Notification No,SRO 166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992 mentioned in the first paragraph or on the basis of quantity exported by performance holders in 1993 of the Association concerned with the categories so adopted.
4. ' Learned counsel has argued that the first Notification' No, 166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992 was time bound Notification and could not have been withdrawn till 31-12-1996. A further argument has been advanced that the respective quotas for the year 1994 were allocated to the petitioners and were so recorded in their Quota Category Pass Books as such the impugned notification could not have retrospective effect. The petitioners acted upon the first Notification, invested huge amount and secured orders for the export of knitwear as such a vested right accrued in their favour could not have been interfered with. A further argument has been advanced that the impugned notification in all illegal manner has delegated the functions of the Federation to the Association concerned i,e, Pakistan Hosiery Manufacturers for the exercise of option for the year 1994, which cannot be sustained inter alia on the ground that in the present cases, resolution of the Association concerned was passed on 2-4-1994 before which quota was allocated to the petitioners in accordance with the Notification No,166(1)/92, dated 7-3-1992, on quantity/value basis. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Export Promotion Bureau and others v. Qaiser Shah 1994 SCM R 859; Ameer Hamza v. Chairman, Railways Board and others 1999 M LD 2346; Messrs M.Y. Electronics Industries Ltd. Through Manager and others v.
5. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others 1998 SCM R 1404; Messrs Diamond Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan NLR 1995 Tax 127 and Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah 'Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 470.
6. ' Learned Deputy Attorney-General has controverted the stance taken by the petitioners. He has stated that the concerned Association i,e, Pakistan Hosiery Manufacturers of which the petitioners are members has exercised option as such no exception can be taken to the impugned notification by the petitioners. The authorisation/allocation allowed to the petitioners on the basis of Notification No,S.R.O.166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992 on quantity value basis was of provisional in nature and was subject to the subsequent change as such the petitioners have got no vested right to claim quota in the terms of earlier notification.
7. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. It is not denied that prior to the issuance of the impugned notification the export quota of the petitioners pertaining to the year 1994 was already allocated to them according to Notification No, 166(1)/92, dated 7-3-1992 on quantity/value basis. It was recorded in their respective Quota Category Pass Books. It is also not denied that the concerned Association gave its express option on 2-4-1994 but by that time the quota of the petitioners as already stated was worked out and implemented in the terms of the first Notification. The impugned notification came thereafter as such the same cannot be given retrospective effect. A valuable right had already accrued to the petitioners which could not have been taken away in this manner.
8. ' It is further noted that during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly stated that his clients would forego their right quota on the basis of S.R.O. No,166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992 for the year 1995-96. There is much force in the argument of learned counsel that the quota for the year 1994 which. As already stated was allocated to the petitioners could not be withdrawn in this manner particularly so when the petitioners in view of the incentive given by earlier notification changed their positions by investing huge amount and secured export orders from the foreign buyers for the year 1994. The petitioners certainly became entitled to this quota for the year 1994 on the basis of their performance for the year 1993 and were so allocated on 50:50 basis. The Resolution of Association adopting adversely to the interest of the petitioners on 2-4- 1994 would not have any effect on the basis which has already stated was determined and so recorded in the Pass Book.
9. ' Another argument of the learned Deputy Attorney-General that the petitioners suffer from laches is devoid of any force as this notifications was under challenge earlier through different writ petitions before this Court. In those writ petitions it was specifically ordered that the petitioners therein would not be deprived of their, allocated quota in accordance with S.R.O, No,166(I)/92, dated 7-3-1992.
10. ' In view of what has been stated above, these writ petitions are accepted and it is directed that the quota recorded in the petitioners Quota Category Pass Book for the year 1994 cannot be interfered with on the basis of impugned notification. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances.