The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the orders dated 3-12-1977, 25-1-1978, 6-3-1978 and 10-6- 1978 passed by the respondent on the revision petition presented by the petitioner against orders dated 16-10-1977 passed by the Controller of Imports and Exports, Lahore. The combined effect of the impugned orders is that the revision petition dated 24-10-1977 has been dismissed inter aria for non-payment of the fee payable under clause 7 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Joint Stock Private Company inter alia engaged in the business of import and sale of Arms and Ammunition. After the abolition of the Bonus Scheme following the revaluation of Pakistan currency the Controller of Imports and Exports proceeded to determine the total imports of arms and ammunition made by the company under the Bonus Scheme during the approximate period of 12 years commencing from 15-1-1959 and ending on 31-12-1970 with the object of determining the import entitlement of the petitioner for the purposes of further licensing. According to the petitioner the Controller after examination of the documents submitted by the petitioner's Company determined total imports for the said period at Rs. 10,02,996. The petitioner presented a review application which was disposed of by the Controller of Imports and Exports, Lahore by his order dated 14-6-1975. The order passed by the Controller was questioned in appeal before the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Islamabad who decided the appeal by an order dated 16..10-1977. The learned Chief Controller determined the total import of arms and ammunition made by the petitioner during the period commencing from 15-1-1959 and ending on 31-12-1970 at Rs. 15,58,427 (Rs. 10,71,454 for arms and Rs. 4,86,973 for ammunition) and the average annual imports at Rs. 1,29,869.
3. Against the Appellate order dated 16-10-1977 passed by the learned Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Islamabad the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Secretary Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce under sub-clause (iii) of clause 3 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957.
4. It is common ground that with the revision petition dated 24-10-1977. The petitioner paid a revision fee of Rs. 500 only. On 3-12-1977 the petitioner received a communication informing him that revision fee at the rate of "5 per cent of the value of the licence claimed" was payable with the revision petition and that the petitioner having paid Rs. 500 as against Rs. 30,720 payable on the basis of the "value of the licence claimed", the revision petition was not being entertained. This communication was replied to by the petitioner by his letter dated 7-12-1977. The petitioner did not deny his liability to pay the fee on the basis of his claim in the revision petition but requested the revisional authority to keep in abeyance the deposit of Rs. 30,720 pending the admission of our (petitioner's) entitlement in the revision petition.
It appears that there was some correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent before 25-1-1978 referred to in the letter dated 25-1-1978 (Annex. 'J' to the petition) which shows that the respondent had declined to modify the "decision already taken" in relation to the revision petition but the petitioner insisted for an interview. No fee was, however, paid. On 6-3-1978 (incorrectly typed as 6-2-1978) the respondent informed the petitioner-Company that "it is a time barred case" and that the revision petition was rejected on account of non-payment of fee as per rules. In spite of this communication the petitioner kept on writing letters to the respondent and on 10-6-1978 the respondent conveyed to the petitioner-Company his inability to accept the request as contained in the petitioner's letter dated 9-3-1978, viz.
(i) for determination of the correct amount of revision fee for deposit of the same by the petitioner ;
(ii) for vacation of the letter dated 6-3-1978 communicating to the petitioner that the revision petition has been dismissed for non-payment of fee and the matter was time barred ; and
(iii) for decision of the revision petition as amended etc. Clause 7 of the Review Appeal and Revision Order which governs the payment of revision fee reads as under :- "Every application for review or revision and every appeal shall be accompanied with a Treasury Challan in the original showing payment of necessary fees namely as follows : Rs
(a) for review...50.00
(b) for appeal100.00
(c) for revision (An amount equal to 5 per cent of the value of the licence claimed, subject to a minimum of Rs. 500_).
The amount shall be credited under head: "XLVI. Miscellaneous.-Fees realised under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950."
5. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that under clause 7 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957, the petitioner is obliged to pay a fee at the rate of 5 per cent of the value of the licence claimed subject to a minimum of Rs. 500. He relies on the "prayer clause" of the revision petition dated 24-10-1977 to contend that the claim in revision was restricted to the determination of the entitlement for import of arms and ammunition and the petitioner had worked out the total import for the 12 years at Rs. 44,59,871 as against Rs. 15,58,427 worked out by the Controller of Imports and Exports, Lahore, in his order dated 16-10-1977. On the aforesaid basis the annual average imports were calculated by the petitioner at Rs. 3,71,656 as against Rs. 1,29.869 worked out by the Controller of Imports and Exports. He contended that fee would be payable at the rate of "5 per cent of the value of the licence claimed" and inasmuch as the petitioner did not claim any licence he was not liable to pay any fee on the basis of the value of licence but would be obliged to pay the minimum fee of Rs.500 only which having been deposited, the respondent was obliged to hear the petitioner's revision petition and to decide it in accordance with law.
6. In the second place, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dismissing the revision petition is violative of clause 5 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957, which enjoins the respondent not to pass an order disposing of the revision petition without hearing the petitioner if a request to that effect has been made in the revision petition. He has drawn my attention to clause (x) of para. 8 of the revision petition whereby a request for hearing was specifically made by the petitioner for making submissions in support of the revision petition.
7. Mr. Zia Mahmud Mirza, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the revision petition being "not accompanied by" the requisite amount of fee payable by the petitioner, the respondent was perfectly justified in refusing to entertain it. He repudiated the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no import licence was being claimed in the revision petition. My attention was drawn to clause (Ix) of para. 8 of the revision petition dated 24-10-1977 which reads as follows : "The withheld allocation of Import licences at the annual allocation of Bs. 3,71,65,E for 1974, 1975 and 1976 may please be allowed to be Issued by the C.1. & E. Lahore. Directions on this behalf may please be Issued."
It was contended that in clause (Ix) of para. 8 of the revision petition the petitioner not only quantified the entitlement to import licences but also made specific prayer for a direction to the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Lahore to issue the withheld import licence. He maintains that it was the petitioner who had himself worked out the annual allocation for import licences and was claiming import licences equivalent to sum total of the three years withheld entitlement.
8. The grievance that the petitioner had not been granted an opportunity for making good the deficiency to the fee was also repudiated by the learned counsel for the respondent by producing the Original Letter No. 0/32 dated 7-12-1977 signed by the Managing Director of the petitioner's Company to the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Local Government, Islamabad, which reads as under : "The sum of Rs. 500 was deposited as a minimum fee. Further that the amount of Rs. 30,220 would be deposited promptly prior to the release of import licences valuing Rs. 6,14,403 or of the amount thus admitted for licensing after hearing the revision petition. The revision petition is of a quasi- judicial character. It is not to be bound by technical rules. The revisional authority is to administer substantial justice, and for that matter should proceed according to the principles of natural justice. The remainder fee would be paid prior to the release of import licences.
In view of the matter, you are kindly requested to very kindly entertain our revision petition, grant us an opportunity to make submissions in support of our claim and allow us to satisfy the revisional authority to keep in abeyance the deposit of Its. 30,220, pending the admission of our entitlement in the revision petition."
9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner neither denied his liability to pay the fee on the ground that the petitioner was not claiming any licence nor claimed that the amount of fee demanded was either illegal or incorrect. He referred to the letter dated 7-12-1977 to contend that the only intention of the petitioner was to postpone the payment of the amount till after a licence had been issued and a prayer to that effect has been specifically made in the aforesaid letter.
10. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that under clause 7 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957 it is the duty of the petitioner to pay the Revision fee before he files a revision petition on the basis of the value of the licence claimed by him. In other words, it is his claim alone which would be relevant for the purpose of determining the amount of revision fee payable by the petitioner. The petitioner having clearly mentioned the withheld allocation of import licences at Rs. 3,71,655 for each of the three years, namely, 1974, 1975 and 1976 was obliged to pay the fee on the basis of his total claim of Rs.
11,14,960 (Rs. 3,71,655 plus Rs. 3,71,655 plus Rs. 3,71,655). The fee payable at the rate of 5 per cent.
Would work out to Rs. 55,748 while the respondent had claimed that the fee payable was Rs. 30,220 only. Even that amount was not paid. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the revision was not competent for reasons of the petitioner's failure to pay the fee before submission of the revision petition and to send the original, treasury challan evidencing the payment of such fee with the revision petition in accordance with requirements of clause 7 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957.
11. I am of the view that the right to move the Federal Government by a revision petition must satisfy the pre-condition of payment of the revision fee before the revision petition is filed by an aggrieved person. Even if it be considered that the non-payment of fee should be considered on the same line as the cases of non-payment of court-fee in matters before the civil Court, the petitioner in this case had failed to make the payment even upon being called upon to do so by a communication dated 3-12-1977. In fact, while the petitioner did not dispute the liability to pay the fee, he has upon some misconstruction of the provisions of clause 7 of Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957 acted under the misconception that it is the responsibility of the respondent to convey to him the amount of fee payable.
12. Having considered the provisions of clause 7 of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957, I have no doubt that the liability to pay the revision fee has to be ascertained by the petitioner on the basis of his own ~, claim to import licence and is neither dependent upon the value already determined by the Controller of Imports and Exports nor the determination of the entitlement to import licences in revision. The petitioner having failed to set up a claim before the respondent that his claim in revision is confined to the determination of average annual import entitlement only) cannot be permitted to set up this plea for the first time in the present proceedings. In fact the letter dated 7-12-1977 addressed by the petitioner to the respondent clearly shows that be was claiming the import licences 1 but wanted only the postponement of payment till after his entitlement to the import licences was finally quantified. Since the revision fee is not payable on the basis of the final determination of entitlement to import licence but is payable before the revision petition is filed on the basis of claim made by the petitioner in the revision petition, the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner has no force.
13. Inasmuch as the revision petition presented by the petitioner was not maintainable for non- payment of the revision fee, the petitioner had no right to have the revision petition entertained and heard. It is well settled) rule of law that where the law requires the fee to accompany the appeal or revision an appeal or revision presented without the requisite fee would not' be regarded as valid, appeal or revision and even where appeal or revision fee is paid after the statutory period of limitation has expired the appeal o revision may be dismissed as barred by limitation. If an authority is needed I would refer Lala Ganesh Parshad (11 and Haji Mahboob Bus Ehsan Elahi v. C. L T. (18 1 T R 72).
14. The respondent did observe the principles of natural justice in intimating the petitioner that the revision fee payable had not been deposited and for that reason the revision could not be entertained. In view of the petitioner's failure to deposit the revision fee without denying his liability to pay the fee the revision was not duly instituted as required by law and the petitioner was not entitled to any hearing as of right under clause (5) of the Review, Appeal and Revision Order, 1957.
15. All the grounds taken by the petitioner fail and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with costs.