' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioner deals in manufacturing of Allopathic medicines since 1991 under the registered licence issued by respondent No,1-defendant No,1 since the establishment of the petitioner's concern it manufactured and introduced 58 drugs which were registered under the provisions of the Drugs Act, 1976. The said drugs were analyzed by the experts of the respondents and, declared standard medicines for the public health. Respondent No,1-defendant No,1 sent a show-cause notice dated 29-5-1997 to the petitioner with the direction to file reply within 15 days as to why drugs manufactured of his company and five drugs may not be cancelled. The petitioner, submitted the reply Hof the show-cause notice, controverted the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice.
The respondents cancelled the drugs manufacturing licence of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the letter dated 26-5-1997 issued by respondent No,1-defendant No,1 to the petitioner-plaintiff under which the drugs manufacturing licence of, the petitioner has been cancelled, is out of mala fide, illegal, arbitrary, void, ab initio, harsh, unconstitutional and without lawful authority and as a consequential relief, respondent No,1- defendant No,1 be restrained accordingly from giving effect to the impugned letter in any manner or way whatsoever may be, before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, alongwith an application for ad interim relief. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for ad interim relief, of the petitioner vide order dated 11-11-2000. The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Additional District judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 9-5-2002.
The petitioner being aggrieved filed the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that both the Courts below erred in law to dismiss the application for ad interim relief of the Petitioner without applying their independent judicial mind. He further submits that according to the petitioner, four drugs were found substandard whereas according to the respondents, five drugs were found substandard, therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to pass the impugned order. He further submits that the First Appellate Court erred in law to observe that the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie or at least argttable case and also failed to observe that the petitioner could not suffer irreparable loss if the injunction application is dismissed. The petitioner has invested huge amount to establish the establishment. This fact alone is sufficient that First Appellate Court decided the case without applying its independent mind. He further submits that Drug Inspector had given inspection report in favour of the petitioner on 1-3-2000 with the finding that standard operating procedure of production and quality control were present and all the other instruments were found in working condition at the time of inspection and recommended the manufacturing concern be allowed for production. The Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board, Punjab, vide letter dated 10-2-1999 considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the inspection dated 9-1-1999 and decided to allow the petitioner to start production under intimation to the Department and be more careful in future. Both the Courts below erred in law not to consider the documentary evidence, therefore, order and judgment of the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that the reports relied by the petitioner are not of the Inspectors of respondent No, I. The report dated 1-3-2000 is of Inspector of the Provincial Quality Control Board, Punjab. Similarly, letter dated 10-2-1999 is also of the Secretary, Provincial Quality Control Board, Punjab, whereas the competent authority is respondent No, 1 . He further submits that petitioner has not challenged the order of cancellation in his suit as is evident from the prayer clause although the petitioner has mentioned in the title of the suit that petitioner challenged the order of cancellation on the ground of mala fide whereas the petitioner did not allege any specific mala fide in the contents of the plaint. He further submits that petitioner has concealed following material facts from this Court:--
(i) The licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Competent Authority vide order dated 26-8- 1997.
(H)` The petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal under the provisions of the Drugs Act before the Drug Appellate Board, which was dismissed by the Board on 15-8-1998 but this fact was not pointed out by the petitioner in the contents of the revision petition.
(iii) The petitioner also filed an application for renewal of drugs manufacturing licence before the Secretary, Central Licensing Board, which was rejected vide order dated 29-2-2000.
' He further submits that suit of the petitioner has become infructuous in view of the non-renewal of the licence of the petitioner by the Competent Authority vide order dated 29-2-2000 coupled with the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Appellate Authority dated 15-8-1998 as the order of cancellation is merged in the order of the Appellate Board. He summed up his arguments that the petitioner is not entitled to any ad interim relief in view of the subsequent events and also not entitled to the relief claimed by the petitioner through this revision petition, which tantamount to grant of total relief which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
4, The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal, submits that respondents did not renew the licence of the petitioner mala ride on a frivolous ground that premises of the petitioner is situated in a residential area vide order dated 29-2-2000 whereas the Shazeb Laboratory, and Fazal Din & Sons establishments are functioning in the residential areas but no action has been taken by the respondents against the aforesaid Firms, therefore, action of the respondents is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution. He further submits that the petitioner has filed appeal against the cancellation order before the Appellate Board, The Appellate Board did not decide the same within reasonable time, therefore, petitioner was constrained to file a civil suit, After filing the civil suit, the Appellate Board decided the appeal of the petitioner on 15-8-1998, therefore, contention of the learned counsel of the respondents that petitioner has not challenged the order of the Appellate Board has no force,
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6, It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties: --
(i) The petitioner challenged the vires of the aforesaid cancellation order by filing a suit for declaration before the Civil Court on 9-9-1997.
(ii) The petitioner also filed an appeal before the Appellate Board under the provisions of the Drugs Act, which was dismissed by the Appellate Board vide order dated 15-8-1998,
(iii) The petitioner filed an application for renewal of licence which was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 29-2-2000. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the order dated 29-2-2000 and 15-8-1998 in his suit as is evident that the suit was filed before the said orders passed by the respondents. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the said orders through this revision petition.
' It is settled principle of law that order dated 26-8-4997 is merged in the order of the Appellate Board dated 15-8-1998. It is also admitted fact that the licence of the petitioner was not renewed by the respondents vide order dated 29-2-2000. It is settled principle of law that this Court has ample jurisdiction to look into the subsequent events at the time of deciding the revision petition as the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' Nasir Jamal v. Zubaidah Begum 1990 CLC 1069.
' Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220.
' It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below have concurrently exercised discretion against the petitioner. Keeping in-view the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the subsequent events, I am not inclined to disturb the concurrent findings of the fact while exercising powers in revision jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. As the Courts below have rightly refused to grant ad interim relief to the petitioner and exercised discretion after applying independent mind, which is in accordance with the dictum laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' Ghulam Hussain's case 1989 ALD 326.
' Amir Gull's case PLD 1992 Peshawar 76.
' Shehzada Muhammad Umar Baig's case PLD 1970 SC 139.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and judgment of the Courts below, therefore, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, keeping in view the controversy involved in the suit, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the aforesaid observations of this Court. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that observations in the interim orders are always tentative in nature. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.