Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-713 of 1984, heard on 5th September, 1984.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----

---Art. 199--Writ petition--Signatures of officer appearing on two documents having distinct dissimilarity --Jurisdiction of Court--Court, held, would hardly ever undertake examination of documents and questions relating to forgery on basis of handwriting and comparison in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction--Public servant denying his signature on a particular document has to be given credence.- [Evidence].

(b) Registration (Import and Export) Order, 1952

--

---Art. 18--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199----Writ petition- Maintainability--Statutory functionaries--Powers of--Cancellation of licence--Only show-cause notice having been given to exporter/ petitioner--Full-fledged enquiry yet to follow--Petitioner to have full opportunity to place his case--Statutory functionaries, held, would be fully justified in withdrawing or cancelling licence of exporter/ petitioner in case commission of fraud and forgery of petitioner proved in full-fledged enquiry.

Muhammad Jamil for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 5th September, 1985.

.-- The case of the petitioner is that he was interested in export of wheat bran to Dubai and for that he was in need of an export permit. He states that he applied to respondent No.1 for grant of such a permit and he received a letter purported to have been signed by one Mr. S.M. Azam, a Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce in the Government of Pakistan. This letter is Annexure 'B' dated 20th June, 1984 wherein it is stated that the petitioner had been advised to approach respondent No. 2 for the said purpose and such necessary instructions had also been issued to respondent No. 2. It seems the respondent No. 2 did issue a permit for the export on 20-6-1984. On 8-7-1984 the Deputy Controller of Imports and Exports sent a letter to the petitioner stating that no attempt should be made by the petitioner to utilise this license and the same should be surrendered. The petitioner has also placed on record a letter dated 25th June, 1984 from the Ministry of Commerce bearing the signature of the same Section Officer wherein it is stated that export of wheat bran had been banned and, therefore, the request made by the petitioner on 30-5-1984 could not be acceded to. It seems an enquiry was held into the question of issue of this export license and the respondent No. 2 found good reason to believe that the letter (Annexure 'B') dated 20-6-1984 was forged and, therefore, the export license had been obtained fraudulently. Opt such basis the respondent No. 2 has issued a notice to the petitioner on 20-8-1984 calling upon him to show cause why action under the Registration (Importers and Exporters) Order of 1952 should not be taken against the petitioner. This notice states that the export license had been obtained by means of forgery and fraud.

Mr. Muhammad Jamil contends that the export license that had been granted to him had been obtained bona fide and under proper permission of the respondent No.1. On the other hand it is a case of respondent No.1 that the export license had been obtained by commission of forgery and practising fraud.

In these circumstances the petitioner seeks a declaration that the show-cause notice dated 20-8-1984 was mala fide, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that the withdrawal of the export license was also male fide unjust and contrary to principles of natural justice.

The first question that deserves consideration is whether this petition is maintainable. It is the case of respondents that the export license was obtained by fraud and forgery. We have seen the letters purportedly signed by Mr. S.M. Azam, the Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce and we cannot come to any other conclusion except this that the signatures of this officer appearing on Annexure 'B', and Annexure 'F' have distinct his-similarity. This Court would hardly ever undertake examination of documents and questions relating to forgery on the basis of handwriting and comparison in exercise of its consti tutional jurisdiction. On the other hand we must state that normally a public servant denying his signature on a particular document has to be given credence. It is also not the case of the petitioner that Annexure 'B' was signed in his presence. In these circumstances there appears to be ample justification for giving a show-cause notice to the petitioner so that a full-fledged enquiry could be held to determine whether the export license had been obtained by practising fraud or using forged documents.

What is more that at present only a show-cause notice has been given and full-fledged enquiry is yet to follow. No final orders have yet been passed in the enquiry. During the course of the enquiry the petitioner will no doubt have full opportunity to place his case but the B decision will eminently be within the powers of statutory functionaries who if they think that the license was obtained by fraud and forgery would be justified in withdrawing or cancelling the said license. We see no substance in this petition which we dismiss in limine.

H. B. T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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