KHALID MAHMOOD KHUHRO Versus FEDERATION OF PAK:STAN

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J .‑‑The petitioner has challenged the setting up of a Sugar Mill at a place different from 'one which was stipulated in 1983. The respondent No.3 was granted permission to establish a sugar mill at Ghulamullah Town District Thatta, which is on the right bank of River Indus. The mill was to be established within two years, but the same did not materialize and the explanation of the respondents' counsel orally given today is that the financial institutions were not prepared to finance the sugar mill on the right bank of River Indus. The other sugar mill was to be established in Ghorabari, Taluka Gharo.

2. In 1985 the respondent No.3 appears to have moved the Government of Sind, for shifting of site, and Mr. G.M. Qureshi has pointed out to us a number of newspapers cuttings where growers of the sugarcane in the area have taken objection to the shifting of the setting up of the sugar mill and there is even a statement alleged to have been made by the then Governor of Sind that the Mill will not be shifted from Ghulamullah Town.

3. However, on 17‑2‑1986 the respondent No.3 appears to have made a formal application for shifting of the setting up of the sugar mill to village Bhudo Talpur and the same was granted on the next day by an Officer On Special Duty. acting for the Secretary to the Government of Sind.

4. The petition was filed in January, 1986 but it was withdrawn and the present petition was filed on 13‑9‑1986, which would be about 7 months after the grant of shifting of site.

5. Mr. G.M. Qureshi, had contended that the interests of the growers would be seriously affected because they were to have one director on the Board of Directors of the mil and they were also entitled to secure 20% of the equity out of the share offered to the public. The same has been denied to the growers of the areas by the shifting of the mill. We enquired from the counsel as to whether the growers had been responsible for the original setting up of the mill at Ghulamullah Town, but the learned counsel was not in a position to establish that position. The net result, therefore, is that the mill was sited by the Government in its own discretion and we have the comments from the department where it had been stated at page 4 of the comments, in respect of para‑10 of the petition, that the project required 350 millions of rupees and the debt portion was 70% of the total costs, which was to be provided by the financial institutions. The financial institutions were not prepared to finance two sugar mills on the right bank of River Indus and, therefore, the project of respondent No.3 was allowed to be shifted on the left bank of River Indus. It is further pointed out that in view of the change in the site on 18‑2‑1986 there was fantastic progress in implementation of the project and the main building of the mill had been completed at an expenditure of about Rupees five crores and the mechanical erection of plant and machinery have already been established in January, 1986 and that irrevocable credit of Rupees twenty‑four crore have already been established.

6. It had also been pointed by Mr. Khalid Anwar for the private respondent No.3 at the Bar that the other sugar mill, which was granted to A1‑Asif has been established near Charo.

7. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that any vested interest of the Growers has been actually prejudiced inasmuch as if the difficulty of establishing two mills on the right bank of river Indus had remained there would have been in actual fact no mills established bed, use of the reluctance shown by the financial institutions to finance two mills near each other. In fact, the change of the site has resulted in Establishment of two sugar mills in the District Thatta' within a distance of only 30 miles from each other. It was, therefore, in the interests of two mills if they are established at different places at some distance from each other.

8. Moreover, the fact that the main building of the mills of respondent No.3 has already been completed and the erection of the machinery has been taken in hand, is enough ground to come to the conclusion that the petition is infructuous, suffers from laches and cannot be allowed.

9. In these circumstances this petition is found to be not maintainable. It is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

10. Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.

11. H . B . T . / K‑77 / K Petition dismissed.