Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 97‑R of 1982, decided on 24th May, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 25th April, 1982 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 463 of 1981).

‑‑ S. 12 (2) read with Emigration Rules, 1979, r. 8(5)‑Overseas Employment Promoter s Licence, grant or refusal of‑vires of rules‑Federal Government possesses jurisdiction to grant or refuse to grant Overseas Employment Promotor's Licence and matter within its sole discretion Government if deciding to grant such licence could impose conditions as prescribed by law‑Non‑transferability of licence provided under r. 8 (5), held, can be termed as a condition referred to in S. 12, hence, no inconsistency exists between S. 12 and rules framed under Ordi nance.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

---S. 12 (2)‑Licence‑Inheritance‑Overseas Employment Promotor's Licence‑‑Held, terminates on death of licensee and cannot be claimed by heirs of deceased licensee as of right.

Musheer Pesh Imam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 24th May, 1982.

‑By this petition leave is sought from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 25‑4‑1982 whereby Writ Petition No. 463/81 was dismissed.

2. Late Col. (Retd.) Tassaduq Hussain, Sole Proprietor of Messrs. Tezgam & Company holding a licence under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 which was to expire on 31‑12‑1980, died on the 27th October, 1980. Mrs. Akhtar Jan, widow of the Late Col. Tassaduq applied for the renewal of the said license on 9‑12‑80 and in the alternative for grant of the new licence. This application was rejected on 9‑3‑1981. Thereafter she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed on 9‑7‑1981 on account of non‑appearance. A review application was thereafter filed without any favourable result and the same was dismissed on I‑10‑1981. She then filed a writ petition before the High Court which, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's Late husband was holding a valid license which may legitimately be called a trading license non‑renewal of which without any sufficient cause was not just and was not permitted by law. He further contended that the license and the consequential good‑will attached with it was a piece of property which could legitimately be inherited by the petitioner and the other heirs of the Late Colonel under the Muhammadan Law. He further urged that rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules, 1979 were inconsistent with section 12 of the Emigra tion Ordinance, 1979 which deals with the grant of Overseas Employment Promoters' licences and rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules makes the license non‑transferable. We have considered the argument of the learned counsel in the light of section 12 (2) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and rule 8 (5) of the Emigration Rules, 1979 which read as follows: ‑

"Section 12 (2).‑On receiving an application under subsection (1) the Federal Government, may, after such inquiry as it may deem necessary, grant the licence applied for on such terms and conditions, if any and on payment of such fee and on furnishing such security, as may be prescribed or withhold such licence, and the decision of, the Federal Government shall be final: ‑

Rule 8 (5).‑On furnishing evidence of deposit of the fee and security referred to in sub‑rule (4) the Director‑General may grant the licence in Form‑I which shall be non‑transferable,"

4. Bare reading of the above‑reproduced section 12 (2) and rule 8 (5) would show that it is within the discretion of the respondent Government to grant or to refuse to grant a licence; and that if it decides to grant a licence it may impose conditions as prescribed by law. The non‑transferability of the licence provided under rule 8 (5) can be termed as condition referred to in section 12 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance. Thus there is no inconsistency between the said section and the rules framed under the relevant law. The next question to consider the licence as a piece of property has also no force as on the death of the licensee, the licence terminate and cannot be claimed as right by the heirs of the licensee. Therefore, we find no force in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed,

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.