' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-By means of Acquisition of ownership and management of cotton ginning establishments Order, 1976 (S. It.
0.) 717(1)176, dated 17-7-1976 issued under section 5 of the Cotton Ginning Control and Development Ordinance XXVI. Hereinafter called the Ordinance, the Federal Government acquired Bodle Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, situated in Bodla Farm, Pakpattan and its ownership and management was on the same date transferred to the Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan ride S. R.
0. 718(I)/76. However, the Cotton Trading Corporation, it appears, also took over another industrial unit known as Bodla Oil Mills, situated at Bodla Farm, Pakpattan. The writ petitioners, who were owners of the Oil Mills, filed a writ petition bearing No, 2948 of 1976, challenging the taking over of the Oil Mills and pleaded that under the aforesaid Ordinance, only cotton ginning factories conic be taken over and not oil mills. This plea was found to have force and the writ petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court by means of his judgment and order awed 9-6-1977 and the taking over of the Bodla Oil Mills was held to be without lawful authority and it was directed that the same should be returned to the petitioners. In the writ petition there were two respondents, namely, (1) Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Agrarian Management, Islamabad and
(2) the Cotton Trading Corporation of Pakistan. Tice latter alone has filed the present intra-Court appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel far the appellant argued that the oil mills in dispute could be taken over by the Federal Government/the appellant Corporation under section 5 of the Ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that basically the Ordinance contemplated taking over only of ginning factories, The contention has no merit. A perusal of the preamble of the Ordinance shows that it was being promulgated, as written therein, 'whereas it is expedient to make provision to regulate the operation and development of cotton ginning and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". Section 2(h) of the Ordinance defined "industry" and stated that "industry means the cotton ginning industry, composed of one or more cotton ginning factories". Section 2(f) so far as relevant to be quoted at the present place defined "establishment" and stated that "establishment means any company, firm, concern, institution or enterprise the whole or any part of the undertaking of which pertains to the industry, and includes the business related to the industry, and any office, shop, building, factory, godown, yard, stocks, stores, vehicles and assets in any form, so related, wherever they may be". In section 5(1) of the Ordinance, it was then written that the Federal Government, may, by an order published in the official Gazette, acquire the ownership and management of any establishment". All this will show that an establishment, the ownership and management whereof could be compulsorily acquired must pertain to the industry I. e. Cotton ginning industry. All this is clear from the words "which pertains to the industry", "related to the industry" or "so related" underlined` above, which have reference only to the cotton ginning industry and cotton ginning factory and not oil industry or oil factory or, as a matter of fact, any other industry or factory. Confining ourselves to the facts of the present case, we may mention that for taking over oil factories there exists an independent enactment in the form of Hydrogenated Vetetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act LXV of 1973 which is on the same pattern and lines as the enactment pertaining to cotton ginning industry and factory but where 'industry' is defined in section 2(g) as -"hydrogenated vegetable oil industry" and 'establishment' is defined in section 2(f) as-"any company, firm concern, institution or enterprise the whole or any part of the undertaking of which pertains to the industry and includes any related office, shop, factory, godown, yard, stocks and stores wherever they may be". This will show that oil factory or hydrogenated oil industry is different and separate industry from cotton ginning industry and the respondents could not consider oil industry as related to cotton ginning industry especially when each of them has been separately treated by the Legislature whereafter the executive could not arrogate to themselves the power to declare that both are one and the same industry or related to one another. Learned counsel tried to argue that from cotton was manufactured cotton seed and from cotton seed was manufactured oil (of different kinds), and as such, oil factories and industries were also, according to him, establishments related to cotton ginning industry or factory. The submission cannot be accepted. We asked the learned counsel that if, for example, from cotton was manufactured yarn and from yarn was manufactured cloth, then would it mean that in the garb of acquiring cotton ginning factories the authorities concerned could acquire yarn factories, textile factories or died manufacturing factories or rough carpets factories which manufacture rough carpets from cotton or waste cotton etc. The learned counsel could not give any answer. Be that as it may, we are of the view that it is not permissible to take over oil factories in the garb of taking over cotton ginning factories. The view of the learned Single Judge, in this respect, seems to be perfectly in order and calls for no interference in this Intra-Court appeal on the subject in hand.
3. Learned counsel then argued that in the "Explanation" attached to were in italics the definition of "establishment" as contained in section 2(f) it was written 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". He submitted that since it was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government to decide the matter of the kind involved in the "Explanation", therefore, the learned Single Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in holding that oil mills was not related to or included in the cotton ginning factory. The plea has no force. The "Explanation" authorises the Federal Government to declare whether a business is related to cotton ginning industry but not whether any other industry is related to cotton ginning industry. Cotton ginning industry, to excuse repetition, according to section 2(h) is such which Is to consist of one or more cotton ginning factories and not factories of any other type of industry. The Federal Government, therefore, has no jurisdiction to infuse any other industry with cotton ginning industry and nor it has any exclusive jurisdiction on that subject. The nature of industry having been specified and explicitly defined there is no scope to substitute any other industry for the same, though the claim to get demarcated the premises connected with one or the other industry may always be pressed in the field by all concerned.
However, in the instant case, even on factual plane the reports of the field staff were that the oil mills was separate and independent from the cotton ginning factory.
4. No other point was argued.
5. The result is that the present intra-Court appeal has no merit and is dismissed limine.