KARACHI, May 16: Several auctioneers or “mole holders” have challenged the Fishermen Cooperative Society’s (FCS) alleged pressure on them to enter into “unilateral” agreement for carrying out their business.
The petition, filed by Ghulam Abbas Soomro, advocate, has been fixed before a division bench of the Sindh High Court, consisting of Justice Ghulam Nabi Soomro and Justice Wahid Bux Brohi, on Friday.
The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the impugned orders compelling them to execute unilateral agreement and suspending their “mole operations” which they claimed were illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction.
It was also their contention that the demand of 50 per cent share of the commission on account of the sale of fish from them (petitioners) by the respondent No 2, the FCS, having no legal sanction, should be declared of no legal consequence.
Five “mole holders” have made the provincial government, the FCS and the Karachi Fish Harbour Authority respondents in the matter.
The petitioners were carrying on business as “auctioneers” of fish commonly known as “mole holders,” since before the partition of the subcontinent, in the KMC Auction Hall, situated at “Khadda Market” Nawabad, Karachi. They were tenants of the defunct KMC which was borne out from the demand notice issued by the KMC and the rent receipt.
The petitioners said they had complied with terms and conditions always imposed verbally and unilaterally by the FCS.
Ever since the registration of the FCS, the respondent No 2, no terms and conditions had been settled in respect of recovery of commission from the petitioner “mole holders” for the sale of fish by their “moles,” but the respondent, the FSC, had been extracting 50 per cent of the commission (6.25pc) earned by the petitioners from daily fish sales proceeds by auction. The petitioners had been protesting time and again that the forcible recovery of such a commission was not warranted by law, but to no avail.
In case of refusal to make payment of the said commission the FCS had been harassing the petitioners “mole holders” by cancelling their “moles” and or suspending their rights to auction fish, in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 18 of the constitution.
It was their case that recently the respondent, the FCS, had been pressuring the petitioners to execute unilateral agreement failing which their “mole” should be suspended.
The petitioners, according to the petition, resisted the designs of the FCS and impressed upon it that the proposed agreement did not contain the safeguard for the rights of the petitioners “mole holders” for their welfare and promotion of their business, so it was unilateral and illegal, and as such the respondent No 2 had absolutely no right to force the petitioners to execute the said agreement.
It was their contention that after the promulgation of the Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority Ordinance of 1984 and under section 34 thereof “regulations” had also been framed and enforced on various subjects.
In view of such an existing legal framework the functions of the respondent No 2 stood superseded, the petitioners contended.
These regulations, having an overriding effect, were for the development, benefit and welfare of the poor fishermen and of the fish dealers (mole holders) whose activities in the fish Harbour had been rationalized and provided legal cover.
The petitioners submitted that they would be getting more benefits towards their welfare under the umbrella of these regulations framed and enforced by the respondent No 1. Thus the legal framework having already been provided under the Ordinance and the Regulations, the demand of the FCS, for 50pc commission or for the execution of the proposed unilateral agreement was devoid of any legal basis.
As the petitioners refused to succumb to what they termed illegal and malafide designs of the FCS by refusing to pay 50pc commission, the respondent, the FCS, had illegally and arbitrarily suspended their “moles” to operate for auction of fish without notice, with the result that they had to sustain irreparable loss.
It was their contention that the impugned orders passed by the respondent, the FCS, were illegal and of no legal consequence being violative of article 18 of the constitution.
After the promulgation of the Karachi Fisheries Harbour Authority Ordinance of 1984, “Regulations” had been framed and enforced under section 32 of the Ordinance for registration of fish dealers (mole holders) and landing and disposal of fish, etc.
