Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that one Muhammad Mohsin Shah submitted an application before the District Coordination Officer, Mandi Bahauddin who marked it to the Deputy District Coordination Officer/Secretary, Regional District Transport, Mandi Bahauddin respondent No. 1 who conducted a raid at the petitioner's premises and took into possession certain quantity of diesel and mobil oil. He lodged a report against the petitioner on 7-6-2002 whereupon a criminal case was registered against him vide F.I.R. No. 115 of 2002 for offence under sections 3/23 of Petroleum Act 1934 and rules 26 and 44 of the Petroleum Rules, 1971 Police Station Pharianwali, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahaud Din.
2. The petitioner's learned counsel contends that the Deputy District Officer Coordination, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction under the Petroleum Act and the rules framed thereunder to conduct raid at the petitioner's premises and lodge a report. He submits that earlier the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.10545 of 2000 against the Executive Magistrate who had conducted a raid and taken mobil oil etc. Into possession and got a criminal case registered against the petitioner.
The said petition was finally accepted vide order dated 22-12-2000 and the F.I.R. Was quashed.
3. The learned Additional Advocate --General does not oppose the prayer made in the petition and points out that in similar cases F.I.Rs. Were quashed by this Court. In this connection he places reliance on the judgments in the cases of Liaqat Ali v. State (1993 M LD 2279) and Naeem Akhtar and others v. The State through S.H.O., P.S. City Sargodha (1993 M LD 577). In the case of Liaqat Ali, a police officer had raided the premises, made recoveries and sent samples of mobil oil/grease to the laboratory. It was held that the ordinary police officer was not authorized to conduct the raid and hold an inquiry. The criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No.29 of 1992 was declared to have been registered without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the proceedings pending before the trial Court were quashed. In the case of Naeem Akhtar etc., an A.S.-I. Had raided the lubricating oil depot of the accused persons and got a criminal case registered against them. The F.I.R. Was quashed on the ground that the competent authority under the rules was an officer appointed by the Central Government to exerise powers under rule 43-A. Under rules 34,35, 36, 38 and 43, the Deputy Commissioner of the District could exercise powers of authority but the A.S.-I. Did not figure anywhere in the scheme of the law. Therefore, the F.I.R. Was quashed.
4. Admittedly the Deputy District Officer Coordination/respondent No.1 was never empowered to act as competent authority under the Petroleum Act, 1934 or the rules framed thereunder. Under rule 2(b) of the Rules, the competent authority is the Director of Oil Operations Natural Resources, Islamabad as well as the Deputy Commissioner under rule 43 of the Rules. Hence the raid conducted by respondent No. 1, the recovery made by him and the report lodged against .The petitioner are wholly without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In similar circumstances the earlier petition (Writ Petition No. 10545 of 2000) in which the raid was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, was accepted and the F.I.R. Registered against the petitioner was quashed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is accepted and F.I.R. No.115 of 2002 registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Pharianwali, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Bahauddin is quashed.