LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has allowed a petition of Ittefaq Sugar Mills and set aside a decision of the director general (industries) with a direction to it to process the mills’ case further for the establishment of a new unit.

The mills had filed an application before the director general of industries, prices, weights and measures of Punjab under section 3 of the Punjab Industries (Control on Establishment and Enlargement) Ordinance 1963 for its relocation.

The DG, however, turned down the request and observed that the requirements of the law were complied with by the applicant but the matter of relocation had already been adjudicated upon at the level of Supreme Court.

“Keeping in view the judgments of the superior courts, application of the petitioner cannot be processed at this stage,” says the order challenged by the sugar mills.

Justice Shahid Karim, in his verdict, observes that although the DG did not specify the judgments of the superior courts which were in his contemplation at the time of the passing of the impugned order, doubtless, he had in mind the judgment of a division bench of the LHC reported as Messrs Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Province of Punjab and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 848) which was affirmed by the SC and the appeals filed by petitioners were dismissed.

The question in the judgments was regarding relocation of certain sugar mills which intended to relocate and establish themselves in south of Punjab from central Punjab.

Justice Karim observes that in the opinion of the division bench the government was free to reconsider the ban in the light of section 3 of the Ordinance and in case any sugar mill sought to relocate or shift from local area to another in Punjab, it was obliged to make an application under section 3 in case there was no ban on the establishment of a new sugar mill.

He observes the division bench had clarified that in future if any sugar mill was sought to be set up, a proper application under section 3 of the ordinance was required to be made for its determination.

The judge notes the view taken by the DG that since the matter has already been determined by the superior courts, therefore, he was constricted to exercise his powers while deciding the application is clearly erroneous and proceeds on a misconception of the judgment of this court as well as that of the SC.

He observes the DG, in the impugned order, did not reject the application but observed that his hands were tied by the decisions of the superior courts.

Allowing the petition of the Ittefaq mills, the judge set aside the impugned order and directed the DG to process the case of the petitioner further for the establishment of mill.

Published in Dawn, August 1st, 2021