h1

P L D 1990 LAHORE 269

TAJ DIN AND OTHERS
V/S
ZILLA COUNCIL KASUR AND OTHERS

Per Irshad Hassan Khan, J.(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article. 18, 30(2) and 32—
r/w Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)—S. 62—

The contention is misconceived. The vires of section 62of the Ordinance, which provides for regulation of private markets, cannot be tested on the touchstone of Article 32 of the Constitution, which relates to the Principles of Policy. Under clause (2) of Article 30, the validity of an action or of a law cannot be called in question on the ground that it is not in accordance with the Principles of Policy and no action could lie against the State, any organ or authority of the State by any person on such ground.

Syed Zain-ul-Abidin and Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi further argued that in terms of Article 18 of the Constitution, private markets cannot be established unless and until a place is specifically demarcated for the purpose by the Municipal Committee.

The contention is devoid of any force the place for the establishment of private markets can be maintained at any place within the local area of an urban Local Council under a licence granted by the urban Local Council and in conformity with the conditions of such licence, as is apparent from the bare perusal of section 62 of the Ordinance. In other words, sale, manufacture or preparation of articles of food at any place not licensed by the Urban Local council can be prohibited while any person may person may carry on the sale of manufacture of such articles at any place or premises with permission of the urban Union Council by establishing a private market and in the absence thereof, he will not be allowed to carry on his business. Clearly, it will amount to regulation of trade through a licensing system, which would be in conformity with the provisions of Article 18 of the Constitution. [p.277] C, D.

Appeal dismissed.

Advocate for the Appellants:
Malik Muhammad Nawaz .

Advocate for the Respondent:
Syed Muhammad Zain-ul-Abidin.

Advocate for the Respondent. No. 2.
Abdul Aziz Qureshi.

Nemo for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 20th and 21st February, 1990.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: