' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 6th December, 2000 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,3100 of 1984 filed by respondent has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent is a company running sugar mills. It was required by the Provincial Government vide notification, dated 31st March, 1983 to deposit certain amounts, calculated in accordance with the terms of the said notification into an Export Fund created by the Federal Government. Respondent-Company challenged the said demand and notification by filing writ petition before Lahore High Court, Lahore with the averments that demand made by the Provincial Government is illegal and without jurisdiction because it is based on a notification not duly notified under the provisions of section 2, subsection (3) of the Punjab Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1958) as according to said provision every notification issued under section 3 of the Act, 1958 has to be duly notified in the official Gazette. Since the said notification has not been notified in the official Gazette, therefore, it cannot be treated as a notified order.
3. Learned Single Judge, in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore after hearing both the sides allowed the writ petition by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that Provincial Government had directed publication of the notification dated 31st March, 1983 in extraordinary Gazette but perhaps inadvertently it has not been published in the extraordinary Gazette. Therefore, according to him non-publication or delay in the publication would not be fatal and only for such reason the notification may have not been declared ineffective and invalid.
5. Mr. Maqbool Ellahi Malik, learned Advocate-General, Punjab, who was present in Court on some other case, on perusal of record stated that Printing Press of Pakistan must have published it in the extraordinary Gazette but if there is an omission, that can be rectified because fact remains that notification, dated 31st March, 1983 was in the knowledge of the respondent and all other concerned, dealing in the business of sugar manufacturing. According to him the object of publishing of a notification in the official Gazette is only to make it public for everyone to have knowledge about its existence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have examined relevant provisions of laws as well as the notification and the impugned judgment, carefully. In our opinion contention raised on behalf of petitioners needs examination because this Court in the judgment reported in Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCM R 785) and Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Late Ch. Muhammad Ahsan through Legal Heirs and others (1991 SCM R 2180) has held that the delay in publication would not make it as invalid.
Therefore, in view of above discussion, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine the above contention.
C.M.A. No,644-L of 2002.--It is a fact that since 31st March 1983, the notification under examination was being fully implemented accordingly. As such pending decision of the petition, the operation of the impugned judgment is suspended.