JUDGMENT KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. - 0n 15.6.1998, the petitioner filed this petition on the assertions that the petitioner's business of manufacturing second grade grease and mobil oil was lawful and respondents Nos. 3 to 7 have no legal authority to interfere in the business or to prohibit the petitioner from manufacturing and selling the same. On 17.6.1998, this Court issued notice to respondent No. 7 (SHO) to show under what authority Of law he was conducting raids on the business premises of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the respondents were .Restrained from acting in any illegal manner.
2. On 19.6.1998, petitioner instituted another Writ Petition No. 12079/98 substantially on the same facts and claimed the relief that registration of case F.I.R. No. 201/97, dated 24.4.1998, under Sections 23 and 24 of the Petroleum Act, 1937, be declared as without lawful authority and the allegations be quashed. The perusal of the second petition shows that there is no mention- whatsoever regarding institution of the earlier Writ Petition- No. 11640/98. At the end, the certificate duly signed by the learned counsel, Ch. Abdul Rashid, Advocate, appears and it is to the effect that "as per instructions this is the first petition on the subject". The second petition was listed before my learned brother Mian Nazir Akhtar, J., who admitted the same on 22.6.1998 and on 2.7.1998, vide order passed on C.M. 1/98, stayed further investigation. Both the petitioners have been filed' by the same person and through the same learned counsel, Ch. Abdul Rashid,. Advocate, 15-Edwards Road, Lahore.
3. Even if the. Finding of second petition be considered permissible, it was-obligatory that reference was made to the institution of earlier writ petition and, the orders made on the same. By suppressing the necessary facts, petitioner, was able to obtain a contrary order from a different Bench. The petitioner has clearly attempted to play fraud upon the process of this Court and his petition does not merit to be considered at all.
4. Even otherwise, vide Notification No. M.826/3 appearing in the Gazette. Of India dated March 27,1937 at. Page 632 all Police Officers of the rank not below that of Sub-Inspector have been authorised to conduct raid in terms of Section 26 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. This is complete answer to the submission of the learned counsel in both the cases, that the SHQ was wrongly raiding the factory premises of the petitioner and he was illegally registering the FIR. Unfortunately, Notification dated March 27, 1937, was not noted in the repeated judgments relied upon by Mr. Abdul Rashid, viz. 1993 M LD 2279 and NLR 1994 Criminal 257, and hence the view propounded therein.
5. For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs. In view of the conduct of the petitioner, special castor of Rs. 10,000/-' (ten thousand) are imposed on the petitioner, the amount when recovered shall be confiscated in favour of the State as fine.
6. As this is the first instance in respect' of Ch. Abdul Rashid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, to my knowledge, I would only lei nim of with a warning to be careful in future.