MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.-- Through this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above petitions which, in their on turn, have arisen out of a consolidated judgment dated 28.6.2001 of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Intra Court Appeals Nos. 884 and 885 of 1999.
2. A brief resume of the facts leading the present proceedings is that petitioners are allegedly licence holders from the Market Committee, Sargodha, and carrying on the business of commission agents in ' Fruits & Vegetables Market, Sargodha'. The respondent-Authorities established New Fruits & Vegetables Market' in Sargodha after acquiring some land therefore, earlier. According to sub-rule (6) of Rule 67 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General)
Rules, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the rules, 70% of the plots in the New Market' were to be reserved for allotment to ' already working commission agents' and the remaining 30% were to be sold through open auction to growers. To cut a long story short, the petitioners (and others) filed Writ Petitions Nos. 13102/99 and 15348/99. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held the petitioner Messrs Batala Fruit Company, Sargodha, guilty of with- ho/ding of material facts as to the disposal of their earlier Writ Petition No. 14322 of 1996, which was dismissed as premature. However, in consonance with the earlier order passed in various other Writ Petitions, the learned Judge in Chambers disposed of Writ ,Petitions Nos. 13102/99 and 15348/99 with a direction to the writ petitioners to obtain determination of their rights and resolution of their disputes "in accordance with law in the Civil Court. The decision in the Criminal Original or the agreement on the list of persons, will not any way prejudice the determination of the right of the petitioner, if any." (Underlining is for emphasis).
3. The learned Members of the C.I.A. Bench took notice of the term "Commission Agent" defined in Rule 2(f) of the Rules and held that a commission agent is required under Sections 5 and 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Market Ordinance, 1978, read with Rule 9 of the Rules to obtain a licence to work as dealer or commission agent and to keep such licence renewed. All the above-referred provisions 'read together provide that a "working commission agent" shall:-- "(i) make or offer to make, on behalf of another for commission, a purchase or sale of any agricultural produce;
(ii) maintain a business office for that purpose; and (i.e) hold a valid license thereto."
As the proof of the above pre-requisites "of a working commission agent" needed a detailed process of enquiry through production of evidence, it was correctly held by the learned Members of the I.C.A. Bench that it "is not possible in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. As such, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 4.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their on costs."
4. In the absence of any legal objection to the above course resorted to by the High Court in disposing of the Writ Petitions as also the Intra Court Appeals of the petitioners,- we are not inclined to the view that any interference with the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2001 is called for.
Resultantly, the above petitions are dismissed and leave declined.