Mian MUHAMMAD ALTAF vs THE SECRETARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE And ANOTHER
This civil revision arises from the cancellation of a medical store licence held by the petitioner, Mian Muhammad Altaf, which led him to file a civil suit against the Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking a temporary injunction against the cancellation order. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to grant the temporary injunction, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. The Lahore High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court reasoned that granting a temporary injunction would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial, potentially allowing the petitioner to continue alleged irregularities in drug sales, which could endanger public health. Emphasizing that the grant of a temporary injunction is a discretionary power, the Court held that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts absent any demonstrated illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the civil revision was dismissed in limine, affirming that the petitioner's innocence must be established before such relief is granted.
- Is the grant of a temporary injunction a matter of right or a discretionary power of the court?
- Should a court grant a temporary injunction if doing so would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction if no illegality or material irregularity is shown?
ORDER
This civil revision has been filed by the petitioner, Mian Muhammad Altaf, who is running Akhlaq Medical Store, opposite Lahore General Hospital, Lahore. His licence to sell, stock and exhibit forsale and distribution certain drugs has been cancelled. Order passed in this regard was challenged by the petitioner by filing a civil suit against the Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, and another. In the said suit, he also prayed for a temporary injunction suspending operation of the order by which his licence has been cancelled. A Civil Judge of Lahore, who was seized of the suit, refused to issue the temporary injunction. The petitioner, therefore, went in appeal before the District Judge, Lahore, but his appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge.
Hence this civil revision.
2.Both the Courts made detailed orders in which it was opined by them that the petitioner did not have a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out anything to enable me to take a contrary view. Even if the petitioner has a prima facie case, it is not a fit case for grant of temporary injunction, because issuance of such injunction would, virtually, amount to grant of relief, prayed for by the petitioner in his suit, before the trial of the suit, inasmuch as he will be able to make use of the licence which has been cancelled. In other words, if he has been guilty of any irregularity justifying the cancellation of his licence he will have permission to commit that irregularity repeatedly during the pendency of the suit and thus play havoc with the ailing humanity making use of the drugs sold by him. I am, however, not in favour of allowing the petitioner to do so, unless his innocence is established.
3. Law is well-settled on the point that it is discretionary with the Court to grant or refuse the temporary injunction and, to my mind, it is not a appropriate case for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the.Unanimous verdict of the two Courts below by which they have refused the temporary injunction, especiall when no illegality or material irregularity in their orders has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
A.A./M-248/L
Cited by 3 cases
- Abdul Sattar through Legal Heirs and another vs Muhammad Azeem and 2 2020 MLD 1718
- THE HUB POWER CO. vs WAPDA 1999 CLC 1320
- Messrs AIRPORT LIMOUSINE SERVICES vs THE AIRPORT MANAGER, CIVIL 2000 YLR 1277