The dispute in this case relates to Bodla Oil Mills situated at Bodla Farm, Pakpattan which was taken over by the respondents under the provisions of Cotton Ginning Control end Development Act, LIX of 1976.
2. The facts as they are apparent from the record of this writ petition and as they are impliedly admitted in the comments filed by respondent No, 2 and the written statement filed by respondent No, 1 are that Khasra No, 1/ 16-24-25 in Khewat No, 95, Khatuni No, 259 was partly owned by Mst.
Fatch Bano and Mst. Hassan Bano, widows, Muhammad Akram, son and Mst. Hamida Begum, daughter of Mien Wali Muhammad, residents of Bodla Farm, Pakpattan, District Sahiwal. These owners sold their shares amounting to 9 kanals 18 marlas out of those Khasra numbers by a registered sale deed executed on the 24th of January 1976 and registered on the tame date, in favour of Messrs Bodla Oil Mills, Bodla Farm, Pakpattan Shari?. It appears from the sale deed that the building of the Oil Mills had already been constructed before the execution of the registered document (Annexure 'A'). A licence (Annexure 'C') was issued by the Central Excise Department on the 31st of October 1975 for running this Mill in the year 1976. The Central Excise Department also approved a site plan (Annexure 'B') of the said Oil Mills. The account of the Oil Mills was opened in the Habib Bank Limited on 10-1-1976 and in tile United Bank Limited on 15-3-1975.
3. On the 17th of July 1976 an Ordinance known as Cotton Ginning Control Ana Development Ordinance, 1976 (XXVI of 1976) was enforced, by which it was decided to acquire the ownership and management of the Cotton Ginning Industry comprised of Cotton Ginning Factories. Since the owners of the Bodia Oil Mills had also a Cotton Ginning Factory known as Bodla Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Bodla Farm, Pakpattan that Industry was acquired on the 17th of July 1976 by the Government acting under section 5 of the Ordinance. It may be stated that section 5 authorised the Federal Government to acquire the ownership and management of any such establishment by an order published in the official Gazette. It further provides that from the date of such order, the previous management shall stand divested of such management acting under this provision. The Government issued a Notification No, S. R.
0.717 (1) of 1976 known as Acquisition of Ownership and Management of Cotton Ginning Establishment Order, 1976. Boola Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Boola Farm is described in that order at Serial No, 2 of the Factories in Pakpattan.
4. Later on the employees of respondent No, 2 showed their intention to take over possession of the Bodla Oil Mills also, since it appears that they were under the impression that certain Mill was a part of the Cotton Ginning and Pressing Unit. On the 17th September 1976, however, Mr. Muhammad Asghar Malik, Manager, Pakpattan of respondent No, 2 submitted the following report to the Circle Manager, Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan, Arifwala : "Bodla Oil Mills Bodla Farm ' In the light of documents produced in favour of Bodla Oil Mills Bodla Farm in Pakpattan Circle, it is submitted that the Oil Mills is separate from the Cotton Ginning Factory. The Gioning Factory is situated in Square No, 2, Kil'as Nos. 19, 22/1, 23/2, 23/1, 20, 21 as shown in (Farde Malkiat) and Oil Mills is situated in Square No, 1, Killas Nos. 16, 24 and 25. Total area 9 kanals marlas. From the record is taken that the Cotton Ginning Factory is quite separate from that of Oil Mills. As the Government has not taken over Oil Mills, so this case should be dealt with by rule. The following documents are attached herewith for your kind consideration (1)Photostat copy of Registrar Haqdaran, (2)Photostat copy of Bodla Oil Mills.
(3)Partnership deed of Oodla Cotton Factory.
(4)Map of Bodla Oil Mills (approved by the Central Excise and Land Customs Department).
' Furthermore it is added that the Partnership Deed of Cotton Factory and Oil Mills show the separate owners."
' The Circle Manager referred the matter for sympathetic consideration on the 22nd of September 1976 to the District Manager, On the 14th October, 1976 the District Manager submitted a report to the Director, Punjab of respondent No, 2 to the following effect :- "The Director (Punjab), Cotton Tracing Corporation of Pakistan Limited, Multan.
' Dated 14-10-1976.
' SUBJECT : "Separation of Bodla Oil Mills Pakpattan"
' Application of Mr. Muhammad Akram Bodla partner of the Bodla Oil Mills, Pakpattan along with the relevant documents in support of his case for separation is enclosed herewith. From the documents in question it appears that the Bodla Oil Mills is a separate Unit and does not come under the purview of composite unit as envisaged in the Ordinance, 1976. Hence it may be allowed to separate and function as an outside Unit.
(Sd.)
(Aley Ahmad Mani), ' District Manager, Sabiwal ' Encl. (1) Blue Print.
(2) Map of Oil Mills.
(3) Form L.
4.
(4) Copy of partnership deed of Bodla Oil Mills.
(5) Sale Deed of Bodla Oil Mills.
(6) Fard Malikat of Bodla Oil Mills."
5. On the 26th of October 1976 the Ministry of Agrarian Management issued Memo. No, F. 3(3)/76-C.
T. C. To the Chief Secretary conveying the following decision of the Government "The Oil Mills attached to the acquired Ginning Factories should not be segregated."
' In view of this general instruction which obviously did not pertain to the Bodla Oil Mills specifically, respondent No, 2 took possession of the said Oil Mills and prepared inventory of the machinery etc. Lying therein, in December 1976. In the meanwhile the petitioners had been making representations to different authorities of respondent No, 2 as well as of respondent No,
1. After the Mill was taken over and sealed by the staff of respondent No, 2 and they did not hear from the two respondents, they filed the present writ petition on the 14th of December 1976.
6. The case of the petitioners is that the said Oil Mills is an altogether different entity as is clear from the documents relied in the different reports of the officers of respondent No, 2 and the conduct of the said respondent in not taking over the Mill for several months. It was also not ordered to be taken over in the order issued under section 5 of the said Ordinance nor could it be taken over at all as a part of the Ginning and Pressing Factory.
7. Respondent No, 2 filed only para-wise comments and did not file any written statement. There is no specific denial about the purchase of the property over which the factory is constructed by the Bodla Oil Mills, of their obtaining a licence and approval of the site plan of the Oil Factory from the Central Excise Department and of the different reports submitted by the officers of respondent No, 2 on the basis of the same record which has been filed in this Court. Respondent No, 1 in his written statement has also not controverted these allegations. The case of both the respondents, however, is that the Oil Mills and Cotton Ginning Factory was a composite unit without any bifurcation wall, it was correctly taken over in pursuance of the instructions of the Government dated 26th October 1976 in the above described letter and in these circumstances it is the Federal Government only which can decide whether the business of Oil Mill is related or not to the Ginning Industry. It is further asserted by respondent No, 1 that the owners of both the units are either the same or belong to the same family and the accounts of both the units were maintained in the same Account Books.
8. The same arguments were addressed before me respectively by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the two respondents.
9. As stated above, the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance (XXVI) of 1976, was promulgated on the 17th July 1976. It defined the terms "Acquired Establishment", "Establishment" and "Industry". 'Industry' was defined as meaning the Cotton Ginning Industry composed of one or more Cotton Ginning Factories. 'Establishment' was defined as meaning any Company, firm, concern, institution or enterprise the whole or any part of the undertaking of which pertains to the industry. It also includes the business related to the industry and any office, shop, building, factory, land, go down, stocks, stores, vehicles and assets in any form, so related, wherever they may be.
There is an explanation attached to this definition and it is to the effect that the Federal Government shall decide whether the business is related or not to the Industry and the decision of the Federal Government shall be final. "Acquired establishment" is defined as meaning establishment in respect of which an order has been made under section 5. Section 5 as stated above, empowers the Federal Government to acquire the ownership and management of any establishment by an order published in the official Gazette.
10. This Ordinance was repealed on the passing of an Act known as the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Act LAX of 1976) provisions of which are in pari materia with the provisions of the repealed Ordinance.
11. The provision referred to above, would show that the Government was conferred the right to acquire the ownership and management of any firm, concern, institution or enterprise, the whole or pin of the undertaking of which pertained to the Cotton Ginning Industry comprised of one or more Cotton Ginning Factories and its business along with any office especially the building, factory, godown, yard, stocks, stores, vehicles and assets in any form wherever they may be. It is only when a difficulty arises as to whether a business is related or not to the Cotton Ginning Factories, that the Federal Government steps in to decide such a dispute.
12. On a bare reading of these provisions it will be clear that the Ordinance or the Act did not contemplate affecting any factory or industry which Is separate from the Cotton Ginning Industry which as stated above, must be composed of only Ginning Factories. A distinction should also be made between the words "business" and "factory". The Government can take over only the industry comprised of Cotton Ginning Factories thereby or any business connected with it, but certainly it cannot take over any other factory which is not a Cotton Ginning Factory under the guise of its being a related business. The word 'Industry' has been defined as Industry' moaning thereby Cotton Ginning Factories. The extension of the scope of industry to business related to it does net envisage inclusion within the definition of any other factory which is different from the Cotton Ginning Factory. The business that can be taken over, is a business of or related to cotton industry and not any other business. Shorn of the details the definition of establishment covers two things ; firstly the Industrial undertaking of Cotton Ginning Factories, an secondly business related to those factories.
The term 'business' Is not used in the sense of a 'factory'. It is used only in the sense of commercial activity related to the factories of a particular type or category Le. Cotton Ginning Factories. It cannot be Wended to cover any other category of factories e.g. The Oil Mills.
13. Applying these principles it would he seen that the Bodla Oil Mills to all intents and purposes is an entity distinguishable from the Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory. It is clear from the above- mentioned implied admission and the documents in the form of sale deed, licence, approved plan of the building as well as the separate account maintained in the two banks, that the owners of Bodla Oil Mills. Though they or some of them may also be owners of Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, intended from the very start to begin Oil Industry as distinguished from the Ginning Industry. The mere fact that some of the accounts of the two Factories have also been mixed cannot lead to the conclusion, in the face of those implied admissions and documentary evidence that the Oil Mill is a part of B the Cotton Ginning Factory or it is a business related to the Cotton Ginning Factory. The reports of the officers of respondent No, 2 which have been cited above, prove that these very documents which have been placed on this record, were also relied upon by the District Manager, the Circle Manager and the Manager, Pakpattan while submitting their reports. It is a case where in the face of these documents, no other inference can be drawn than the one that the Bodla Oil Mill was created as a separate entity.
14. That it was separate, is also proved by the conduct of respondent No, 2 in leaving the building and machinery etc. Of the Oil Mill in possession of the petitioners while taking over the Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory. This points out to the only conclusion that the employees of respondent No, 2 also considered the Oil Mill as an already demarcated property rather than a demarcable unit. In these circumstances the question of segregating one unit from the other does not at all arise. The instruction of the government dated 26th of October 1976 was not, therefore, applicable to the Bodla Mills and the taking over of this Mill is absolutely without lawful authority. It is also without lawful authority for the reason that as seen above, this factory cannot be considered to be a business attached to the Cotton Ginning Factory.
15. I, therefore, allow this petition with costs and quash the order of taking over of the Bodla Oil Mills.
The property in dispute shall now be released to the petitioners.