' The petitioner is a registered firm called 'Classique Enterprises'. It had a licence from the Government for recruiting people from Pakistan for foreign employments and despatching them to the countries of their respective employers. The licence was renewable on yearly basis. The last licence expired on the 30th of March 1977. The Government has refused to renew the licence for the next year on the ground that the petitioner was found guilty of committing forgery. A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner in that behalf and an inquiry was held. The charge was that the petitioner applied to the State Bank for 'P' forms for 32 persons. But instead of attaching with the application the requisite papers from the office of the Protector of Emigrants, had attached fake papers with forged signatures and seal of the Protector.
' The petitioner approached this Court seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction in order to challenge the authority of the Government to refuse licence to it on the ground that the allegation against it was absolutely false and that it had not been allowed proper opportunity to defend itself.
2. After arguments were heard in this case, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, who represented the Government of Pakistan, agreed that the authorities concerned should re-examine the case for the satisfaction of the petitioner although he fully defended the action taken by the Government.
The decision of the case was accordingly postponed. The Joint Secretary to the Federal Government who was concerned with the case, held an inquiry again, called and examined witnesses in the presence of the Managing Director of the petitioner-firm (who is also a partner) and its counsel and concluded thereafter that it was the petitioner-firm alone that was responsible for the forgery.
3. The case of the petitioner was that some other person or firm had used the letter head of the petitioner-firm to obtain 'P' forms for his or its clients. But it was proved during the inquiry that it was Mr. Ashfaq Pervaiz, a partner of the petitioner-firm, who had been pursuing the case in the State Bank.
' A copy of the inquiry report and the proceedings has been placed on record which indicates that there was sufficient material before the authorities to justify their refusal to renew the licence. It may also be mentioned here that the case has already been reported to the F. I. A. Which, according to the learned Deputy Attorney-General, has already concluded the investigation and is going to challan the petitioner.
4. However, be that as it may, it is the duty of the State to see that the innocent citizens of the country do not fall into the hands of unscrupulous Recruiting Agents. The licence system has in fact been introduced mainly to ensure that. Therefore, whenever there is a reasonable doubt that a certain agency cannot be trusted with the fate of the Pakistani citizens going abroad, the State is justified in revoking its licence or refusing to renew it, after due process. In the present case there is sufficient justification.
5. I, therefore, dismiss this writ petition with costs.