MRS. AKHTAR JAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a writ petition challenging the non-renewal and rejection of an Overseas Employment Promoter's licence under the Emigration Ordinance 1979 following the death of the sole proprietor licensee. The petitioner contended that the licence and goodwill constituted heritable property under Muhammadan Law and that Rule 8(5) of the Emigration Rules 1979, which renders licences non-transferable, was inconsistent with Section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the grant or refusal of a licence falls within the discretion of the Federal Government. The Court ruled that Rule 8(5) prescribing non-transferability is consistent with Section 12 of the Ordinance, as it constitutes a statutory condition of the licence. Furthermore, the Court established that a licence terminates upon the licensee's death and cannot be claimed as a heritable property right by legal heirs.
- Is Rule 8(5) of the Emigration Rules 1979 inconsistent with Section 12 of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 regarding the non-transferability of licences?
- Can a statutory trade or employment promoter licence be inherited as a piece of property by the legal heirs upon the licensee's death?
- Does an Overseas Employment Promoter licence terminate upon the death of the sole proprietor licensee?
- Section 12, Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 12(2), Emigration Ordinance 1979
- Rule 8(5), Emigration Rules 1979
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J--By this petition leave is sought from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 25-4-1982 whereby Writ Petition No. 463/81 was dismissed.
2. Late Col. (Retd.) Tassaduq Hussain, Sole Proprietor of Messrs. Tezgam & Company holding a licence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 which was to expire on 31-12-1980, died on the 27th October, 1980. Mrs. Akhtar Jan, widow of the Late Col. Tassaduq applied for the renewal of the said license on 9-12-80 and in the alternative for grant of the new licence. This application was rejected on 9-3-1981. Thereafter she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on 9-7-1981 on account of non-appearance. A review application was thereafter filed without any favourable result and the same was dismissed on I-10-1981. She then filed a writ petition before the High Court which, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's Late husband was holding a valid license which may legitimately be called a trading license non-renewal of which without any sufficient cause was not just and was not permitted by law. He further contended that the license and the consequential good-will attached with it was a piece of property which could legitimately be inherited by the petitioner and the other heirs of the Late Colonel under the Muhammadan Law. He further urged that rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules, 1979 were inconsistent with section 12 of the Emigra--tion Ordinance, 1979 which deals with the grant of Overseas Employment Promoters' licences and rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules makes the license non-transferable. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel in the light of section 12 (2) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules, 1979 which read as follows: - "Section 12 (2).-On receiving an application under subsection (1) the Federal Government, may, after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, grant the licence applied for on such terms and conditions, if any and on payment of such fee and on furnishing such security, as may be prescribed or withhold such licence, and the decision of, the Federal Government shall be final: - Rule 8 (5).-On furnishing evidence of deposit of the fee and security referred to in sub-rule (4) the Director-General may grant the licence in Form-I which shall be non-transferable,"
4. Bare reading of the above-reproduced section 12 (2) and rule 8 (5) would show that it is within the discretion of the respondent Government to grant or to refuse to grant a licence; and that if it decides to grant a licence it may impose conditions as prescribed by law. The non-transferability of the licence provided under rule 8 (5) can be termed as condition referred to in section 12 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance. Thus there is no inconsistency between the said section and the rules framed under the relevant law. The next question to consider the licence as a piece of property has also no force as on the death of the licensee, the licence terminate and cannot be claimed as right by the heirs of the licensee. Therefore, we find no force in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed,