Find a Lawyer

UNIVERSAL TOBACCO COMPANY, PAR HOTI, MARDAN versus PAKISTAN TOBACCO BOARD

Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Arts 18 and 199 Tobacco Marketing Control Rules, 1993, R6 (3) Constitutional Jurisdiction, Applicants in their constitutional petitions were challenged to notify the exercise under which the tobacco marketing control rules contained R6 (3). ) Was added to R6. According to 1993, whereby the applicant companies and other buyers were required to issue the proposed voucher to the tobacco growers, the newly added sub rule (3) was challenged by the applicants as being unreasonable, unnecessary, unnecessary and And it also violates Article 18 provisions. The Constitution of Pakistan (1973) was to protect the rights of tobacco growers (), the main purpose behind making an unknown by-product rule, lest they be exploited in any way by applicants (tobacco companies) or tobacco responders Pakistan Tobacco. Done by The Board, fully authorized to tackle tobacco-related issues, recommended the Government implement all of the aforementioned rules (3) and the Government to check for real payments to farmers and always exploit them. The sub-rule ()) was enforced in order to be fully empowered to create rules to protect the welfare of small-scale farmers, and in all cases the implementation of sub-roll ()) was perfectly legitimate and, in any way, , Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) cannot be declared as irresponsible, unnecessary, unnecessary, irrevocable and infringing because the petition was dismissed. The R has alleged that the newly added by-law (3) will cause financial burden on the applicants. Employ to challenge an exception to a law property advocates from Dhatmal lawyer