HASSAN ALI GRAINS (PVT.) LTD. and others vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
This matter concerns civil appeals arising from the imposition of regulatory duty by the government through notifications dated 7-4-1986 and 17-4-1986. The core legal question addressed is whether the imposed regulatory duty amounted to a confiscatory exercise by the State, thereby violating the right to property and the right to engage in lawful trade, business, or occupation guaranteed under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed several appeals for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the appellants' counsel. Upon hearing the remaining appeals and reviewing the High Court's findings on remand, the Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Sindh High Court. The Court held that the regulatory duty in question did not amount to a confiscatory levy. The key principle laid down is that regulatory duties imposed by the government do not violate constitutional guarantees regarding trade and property unless established to be confiscatory in nature.
- Whether regulatory duty imposed by the government amounts to a confiscatory exercise resulting in the deprivation of the right to property?
- Does the imposition of a regulatory duty violate the right to engage in a lawful trade, business or occupation guaranteed under the Constitution?
- What is the consequence of non-appearance of the counsel and appellants when appeals are listed in the cause list?
- Article 18, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Article 23, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHA WAJA, J.---C.As. 1555 to 1570 of 2007:--- Neither the learned Advocate Supreme Court nor the Advocate-on-Record for the appellants has appeared in these cases despite listing of their names in the cause list.
These appeals are, therefore, dismissed for non-prosecution. C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and 170 of 2009:--- We have heard Mr. Zahid Ibrahim, learned counsel for the appellant in C.As. 1553-1554 of 2007 and Mirza Hafeez ur Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant in C.A. 170 of 2009 at some length and have also gone through the judgment of this Court reported as Government of Pakistan, etc. V. Muhammad Ashraf and others PLD 1993 SC 176). The relevant part of the said judgment in particular has been seen whereby on a very limited question the Court remanded the case for adjudicatio n by the High Court. The limited question was as to whether regulatory duty in these cases amounted to a confisc atory exercise by the State resulting in deprivation of the right to property and the right to engage in a lawful trade, business or occupation guaranteed under Articles 18 and 23 of the Constitution.
2. On remand, a learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court examined the aforesaid questions and it has, after examining case-law from our own jurisdiction as well as that of the Indian and Northern American jurisdictions, come to the conclusion that regulatory duty which was imposed by the government on 7-4-1986 and reduced on 17-4-1986 vide two notifications respectively dated 7-4-1986 and A 17-4-1986, did not amount to a confiscatory levy. The reasoning of the impugned judgment appears in para 8 on wards and the facts relevant for the purpose of enabling the High Court to make an adjudication have also been noted in para 6 of the impugned judgment.
3. It is not necessary to reproduce the said reasoning or extracts from the impugned judgment and nor is, it necessary to repeat or regurgitate such reasoning because we are entirely in agreement with the same as well as the conclusion arrived at that the regulatory duty in question was not a confiscatory levy .