Per Muhammad Muzammal Khan, J-Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 3,18,25,30(2),38 & 199-
I have minutely considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Undisputedly regularization of business of money changers is a policy matter protected under Article 30(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which reads as under:–
“30. (1) The responsibility of deciding whether any action of an organ or
authority of the State, or of a person performing functions on behalf of an organ or authority of the State, is in accordance with the Principles of Policy is that of the organ or authority of the State, or of the person, concerned.
(2) The validity of an action or of a law shall not be called in question on the ground that it is not in accordance with the Principles of Policy, and no action shall lie against the State, any organ or authority of the State or any person on such ground”
Respondents being organs of the State no action against them is maintainable even in form of constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Petitioner being a defaulter of considerable amount was not in a position to get renewal of licence or to apt any of the options of the new policy given by S.B.P. thus elected to seek protection of constitutional jurisdiction of this court, under a fake cover.
It brings me to hold that the petitioner himself deliberately remained away to seek franchise in spite of his association in formulating the policy, he was a defaulter of a considerable amount and the policy under attack having already been acted upon and accepted by 90 % of the persons of the trade, is not open to any exception, even on merits.
For all the reasons noted above, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. [pp. 621,622] A,B,C,D & E
Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner
Sher Zaman Khan, Deputy Atttorney General