2017 C L C 1485
[Balochistan]
Before Zaheer ud Din Kakar and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ
ALL QUETTA BALOCHISTAN ARMS DEALERS ASSOCIATION and 9 others ----
Petitioners
Versus
SECRETARY HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS, CIVIL SECRETARIAT QUETTA----
Respondent
Constitutional Petition No.69 of 2016, decided on 6th April, 2017.
Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) ---
----S. 11(b) --- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court ---
Scope ---Policy matter ---Renewal fee, fixation of ---Petitioner was an Arms Dealer and he was
aggrieved of increase in renewal fee of Arms Dealership License ---Validity ---Law had not
debarred authorities to increase renewal fee nor was there any maximum limit of the increased
amount but the same should be reasonable ---Increase in question was not that much high to be
considered as unreasonable ---Policy making was the domain of the Executive and interference in
such domain was not the function of High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.199 of
the Constitution, unless same was violative of the Constitution, law or was product of mala fide --
-No mis -exercise of jurisdiction, illegality or irregularity was found in the notification in
question--- Interference was declined by High Court ---Constitutional petition was dismissed in
circumstances.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan Karachi and others v. Federation of
Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR 2679 and Dossani Travells (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others v. Messrs
Travels Shop (Pvt) Ltd. and others 2013 SCMR 1749 r el.
Muhammad Akram Shah for Petitioners.
Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, A.A.G. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st March, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ZAHEER -UD-DIN KAKAR, J. --- The petitioners, who are authorized Arms dealers,
dealing in the business of selling of various kinds of arms/rounds, have assailed the Notification
No.SO(Arms)2 -1/Arms Policy/2014/1603- 11 dated the 09th December, 2014 "the impugned
notification", through which the respondent revised the fees/rates of arms dealership license,
which for the convenienc e is reproduced hereinbelow: ---
"GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
(Arms Section)
Dated Quetta the 09th December, 2014
NOTIFICATION
No.SO(Arms)2 -1/Arms Policy/2014/1603- 11/. In suspension of this Department's
Notification No. SO (H)1 -3/92/1566 dated 31st May, 1992 and in exercise of power conferred by
clause (b) of Section 11 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 (XX of 1965) the
Government of Balochistan. Home and Tribal Affairs Department is pleased to revise the
Fee/Rates o f the following Arms Dealership License in Balochistan Province with immediate
effect: -
S.No. NATURE OF
ARMS EXISTING REVISED
INITIAL
FEE RENEWAL
FEE INITIAL
FEE RENEWAL
FEE
01 Arms Dealership
Licence on (Form -
X) for (NPB
Pistol/Revolver
and NPB Shotgun
and its
Rounds/Cartridges Rs.3,000/ - Rs.1,500/ - Rs.25,000/ - Rs.25,000/ -
02 Arms Dealership
Licence on (Form -
XII) For (NPB
Rifle and its
Rounds) Rs.3,000 Rs.1,500/ - Rs.25,000/ - Rs.25,000/ -
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that increase of renewal fee from Rs.1500/ -
to Rs.25.000/ - by the respondent is unreasonable as well as contrary to the rates/fees as
determined and fixed by the sister provinces; that the respondent by mis -exercise its authority
and jurisdiction has enhanced a nd revised the fees/rates of Arms Dealership License; that the
impugned notification is a result of illegal and arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction, therefore, the
same is required to be declared as unlawful and void.
3. On the other hand the learned AAG ve hemently opposed the petition and defended the
impugned notification. He contended that as per clause (b) of Section 11 of the West Pakistan
Arms Ordinance, 1965, the respondent has the authority to enhance/revise the renewal fees of the
Arms Dealership Li cense in Balochistan, therefore, no illegality has been committed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Admittedly, it is in the domain and policy of the Government to enhance/revise the Arms
Dealership License from time to time as per clause (b) of section 11 of the West Pakistan Arms
Ordinance, 1965, which is reproduced herein below:
"11. Power to make rules as to licences
(b) fix a fee payable by stamp or otherwise in respect of any such licence; "
5. The law does not debar the official to increase the renewal fee nor is there any maximum
limit of the increased amount. It is true that the increased amount should be reasonable. The
increased amount of Rs.25,000/ - in our view is not that much high to consi der it as unreasonable.
Even otherwise for a considerable long period, the renewable fee was not increased and the
dealers were enjoying a meager fee for several years, as such the increased amount cannot be
considered unreasonable.
6. Moreover, this Court , in view of the law laid down in (1998 SCMR 2679) "Institute of
Chartered Accountants of Pakistan Karachi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others",
cannot interfere in the policy matters, which require consideration of various factual aspects. The
High Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the policy decisions and substitutes its own
decision with the decision of the Government unless it is proved that the decision has been made
in excess of jurisdiction or the same is arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan in another judgment reported in {2013 SCMR 1749} titled "Dossani
Travells (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others" has held that
policy making is the domain of the Exec utive and interference in such domain was not the
function of the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 unless it is violative of the Constitution, law or was product
of mala fi de. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any mis -exercise of
jurisdiction on behalf of the respondents or to show any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
notification warranting interference.
7. For what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this petition, which is,
accordingly, dismissed. The interim order passed in CMA No.167/2016 dated 03.2.2016 is
hereby recalled.
MH/56/Bal. Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.