MUSSARRAT BASHIRUL HASSAN Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 1st February, 1982 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is an authorised rice dealer of the Punjab Government under the Monopoly Procurement Scheme of Rice. In accordance with para 23 of the said Scheme the inspection, weight and sample of the stock of rice purchased by the Government is to be conducted by the representative of the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan jointly with Centre Incharge and the Analyst in the presence of the seller or his nominee as well as one or two representatives of the Rice Dealers Association. Again under para 41 of the Scheme the results of analysis conducted at the time of purchase will be subject to super inspection. In the instant case the original inspection was conducted of the stock of rice supplied by the petitioner in December, 1980 and in consequence thereof a touch of 0.50 was imposed. Subsequently as a result of super inspection it was found that the rice supplied by the petitioner was substandard and as a result of quality touch a penalty amounting to Rs. 30,000 was imposed on him. On the petitioner's representation before the Director Food against the aforesaid action super inspection samples were redrawn and analysed in the presence of the representatives of the Rice Dealers Association and the result of the analysis was final and binding. The petitioner therefore challenged the aforesaid orders by way of writ petition which was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under para 47 of the Scheme the decision of the laboratory alongwith its analysis result ought to have been conveyed to the petitioner by the appellate authority within 50 days of the date of drawal of each super inspection sample. But in instant case the result was conveyed after six months and seven days. Hence the decision was not in accordance with law. We have heard learned counsel at some length. This argument among others had been raised before the learned Judge of the High Court and had been properly attended to. This provision has rightly been held to be merely directory and not mandatory. Besides that at the first super inspection the amount of penalty imposed was Rs. 30,000 but subsequently it was reduced to Rs. 14,743 which showed that the authorities had acted with an open mind and with due care, as if there was any error in the first decision, it was subsequently rectified.

4. In the light of the above discussion we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

5. M.I./H‑50/S Petition dismissed.