ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This civil revision is directed against the two orders passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur and IInd Additional District Judge, Sukkur, whereby the injunction was refused to applicant in his suit filed by him for declaration and permanent injunction.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this application are that applicant/ plaintiff Sadruddin filed a suit for declaration and injunction stating therein that he is proprietor of petrol pump titled as Capri Gas Station on Makhdoom Jumani/Minara Road, Sukkur. He was granted permission for installation of Petrol Pump in the year 1990 by the Government of Pakistan after considering no‑objection certificate issued by Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur. The applicant came to know on 26‑2‑1998 that Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell through its General Manager had surrendered no‑objection certificate to the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur for its cancellation.

3. The applicant has stated that said action of respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.5 was illegal and in disregard of the provision of para.12‑A of the Dispensing Pump and Selling Licence (Pumpsites/Buildings/Facilities owned or leased by the Company). The action was taken without any notice to the applicant and it is the vested and substantial right of the applicant to run and conduct any lawful trade as provided under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The action by the concerned authorities was illegal' and without lawful authority. The injunction application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. was filed alongwith the plaint but the trial Court refused to grant injunction to the applicant/plaintiff vide its order, dated 30‑1‑1999.

4. The said order was challenged by the applicant through appeal before the District Judge, Sukkur in C.M.A. No.2 of 1999. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by IInd Additional District Judge, Sukkur.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is carrying business of Petrol Pump since the year 1990 and. after lapse of seven years the action has been taken by the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in connivance with each other. It is submitted that the suit is still pending for adjudication in the trial Court. The balance of convenience lies in his favour as he is admittedly carrying on the business. He has, prima facie case to succeed. as he has been condemned unheard and principle of natural justice has been violated. The applicant would suffer an irreparable loss if the injunction is not granted during the pendency of the suit.

6. The perusal of material on record shows that the Petrol Pump is installed with the permission granted to the. appellant in the year 1990. The action of surrendering no‑objection certificate by the respondent No. 1 before respondent No.5 ix, Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur is after the lapse of seven years without showing any cause. Admittedly the applicant/plaintiff has not been heard by the respondents before cancelling the licence. This action is against the principles of natural justice. The balance of convenience lies in his favour as he is running the business of Petrol Pump. Free and lawful trade, is the Constitutional right of applicant which cannot be snatched from him without hearing him or without any justified cause. The applicant would suffer irreparable loss, if his 10 years' established business is closed before the verdict is given in civil suit by the competent Court. He has brought a prima facie case as his suit is still pending decision and the same is not dismissed or rejected as being barred by any law.

7. Mr. Manzar Alam, learned counsel for the respondent was present in the Court earlier when the matter was taken up and kept aside due to absence of the learned counsel for applicant. He has been called absent and has left the Court without any intimation.

8. However, I have considered the objections filed by him in Court. The main objection raised by him is that since N.O.C. has been surrendered before the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the business of Petrol Pump is without permission and cannot be allowed to operate as the same is being run illegally.

9. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that let the existing position at the site to continue till the final decision in the suit. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the suit within three months after receipt of the R&P. No adjournment is to be granted to any of the party. In case the plaintiff tries to linger on the matter, the trial. Court would be at liberty to make a reference to this Court for vacating or recalling this order; with these observations, the orders of lower Courts are set aside and the civil revision is allowed with no order as to cost. Listed applications stand allowed.

10. Q.M.H./M.A.K./S‑94/K Application allowed.