Messrs MAIRAJ DIN & SONS vs THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit initiated by the petitioner firm, which challenged the government's decision to reduce the value of its import licence for arms and ammunition. Following the 1977 prohibition laws, the government had initially granted the petitioner an ad hoc import licence of Rs. 15,000 to compensate for the loss of its spirit import business. However, in the subsequent year, the government reduced this value to align with other new importers. The trial court and the Additional District Judge ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the High Court reversed these decisions, dismissing the suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a vested legal right to receive import licences of a specific, higher value based on an initial ad hoc grant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to identify any statutory provision or legal basis supporting its claim to a higher-value licence. The Court affirmed that an ad hoc administrative decision does not confer a permanent right to preferential treatment over similarly situated parties.
- Does the grant of an ad hoc import licence create a vested right to receive similar licences of the same value in subsequent years?
- Can a private entity claim a legal entitlement to preferential treatment in the issuance of import licences without a statutory basis?
- Is an administrative decision to reduce the value of an import licence to achieve parity with other importers legally challengeable in a civil court?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Prior to 1977, the petitioner firm was carrying on the business of import of spirits. With the enforcement of the prohibition laws, an embargo was placed on the import of spirits. In order to compensate the petitioner firm for the loss it was likely to suffer on account of the said embargo, it was issued an import licence of the value of Rs, 15,000 for the year 1978-79 for the import of arms and ammunition. However, in the subsequent year the value of the import licence was reduced to bring it at par with those granted to other new importers. The petitioner firm protested against the reduction of the value of the import licence and made representations to the relevant Ministry but without any success. It then filed a civil suit to call in question the legality of the reduction of the value of import licences. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and its judgment was affirmed by the Additional District Judge. On a revision taken by the Federal Government, the High Court set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts and dismissed the suit. The petitioner firm now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
2. In its written statement the case of the Government was that it was under no obligation to rehabilitate the erstwhile wine dealers. The petitioner firm had been issued a licence for the import of arms and ammunition of the value of Rs,15,000 on an ad hoc basis by the Ministry while the other firms in identical position were given licences at the flat rate of Rs,3,500. The issuance of licence of the value of Rs,15,000 as a special case being a decision of ad hoc nature did not confer any right on the petitioner firm to get licences of the same value in the subsequent year, nor was it entitled to a more privileged treatment than was meted out to similarly placed new importers.
3. On our inquiry, the learned counsel for the petitioner firm was unable to indicate any provision of law upon which it rested its claim to an import licence of a value higher than what had been actually issued to it. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the judgments of the Courts below. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.