ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No.D-5750 of 2021

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

FRESH CASE:

1. For order on CMA No.24214/2021 (Urgent Appln.).

2. For order on CMA No.24215/2021 (Exemption Appln.).

3. For order on CMA No.24216/2021 (Stay Appln.).

4. For hearing of main case.

-----------

24^th September 2021

Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, Advocate for Petitioner.

-*-*-*-*-*-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Exemption granted, but subject to all just exceptions.

3/4. Through instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of SRO 840(I)/2021, dated 30.06.2021 (available as Annexure A-1 at page-17) and SRO 903(I)/2021 dated 09.07.2021 (available as Annexure A-2 at page-27) on the ground that the delegated powers of the Federal Government to impose the regulatory duty in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of MESSRS SH. ABDUR RAHIM, ALLAH DITTA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS (PLD 1988 SUPREME COURT 670) is restricted to achieve the purposes i.e. to maintain proper balance and control the fluctuating prices from time to time during the year in the international market. Whereas, according to the learned counsel, while issuing the aforesaid SROs/Notifications, this aspect of the matter has been ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid impugned SROs/Notifications have not been issued with the approval of the Federal Government (Cabinet), whereas, the petitioner has written a letter to the Ministry of Finance and Revenue (Revenue Division), Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad on 17.08.2021; requiring them to intimate the Cabinet approval before issuing the impugned SROs, however, no such approval has been produced by the respondents to the appellant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that without prejudice to hereinabove legal objections, the issuance of second Notification after one month from the first SRO imposing regulatory duty, whereby, the rate of regulatory duty in respect of the product of the petitioner, has been enhanced from 10% to 20%, is also without any lawful authority or reasonable basis, as according to the learned counsel, the exercise of ascertaining the fluctuation of prices in the international market during the year, could not be undertaken within one month from issuance of first SRO in this regard. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of MESSRS MUSTAFA IMPEX, KARACHI AND OTHERS v. THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS (PLD 2016 SUPREME COURT 808). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that SRO 903(I)/2021 has already been challenged by some other petitioner before the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No.2702 of 2021, wherein, after notice to the respondents, the aforesaid SRO has been suspended vide order dated 11.08.2021, copy of which has been annexed alongwith petition at page 57.

Let pre-admission notices be issued to the respondents as well as D.A.G., to be served through first three modes, for 05.10.2021, when comments, if any, shall be filed with advance copy to the learned counsel for petitioner. It is, however, expected that the relevant comments with regard to approval of the Cabinet, if any, either shall be placed on record or some instructions shall be obtained to this effect by the learned D.A.G., whereas, in case of no comments or instructions in this regard, appropriate order will be passed on the injunction application on the next date of hearing.

J U D G E

*Farhan/PS*