KARACHI, Nov 26: The Sindh High Court has dismissed an application of Al Rahim Trading Co (Pvt) Ltd for restraining the officials of the ministry of petroleum and natural resources from interfering with the import and storage of furnace oil at the Keamari oil terminals by suspending the operation of the impugned notice of cancellation of permission.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali gave the order while disposing of CMA No 7201/2001.
The plaintiff, a private limited company, entered into an agreement for storage and handling of fuel oil with the defendant No 3 (Shell Pakistan Ltd) which was in pursuance of the letter dated 12th December 2001.
On the basis of that agreement the plaintiff made heavy expenditure for making arrangements of storage and handling of furnace oil of the defendant No 3 at Keamari. However, subsequently by a letter dated 26th of September 2001 permission/no objection accorded to the defendant No 3 vide letter dated 12th December 2001 was withdrawn by other defendants and thereafter the defendant No 3 also terminated their agreement with the plaintiff.
Further Case of the plaintiff is that agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No 3 had created vested right in their favour, and therefore subsequent action of withdrawal of permission/no objection in favour of the defendant No 3 by the other defendants and termination of agreement by defendant No 3 were without jurisdiction, mala fide, in breach of principles of natural justice and also in violation of fundamental and vested rights of the plaintiff.
In reply to the application Abdul Hayee Baloch, Deputy Director (M) Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, filed his counter-affidavit wherein he disputed the status of the plaintiff for filing the present suit. He further stated that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No 3 had been executed in violation of Rule 30 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending & Marketing) Rules 1971 and was not binding on the defendants Nos 1 & 2.
He further stated that the letter of termination/cancellation dated 26-9- 2001 related to the defendant No 3, which had been issued for the shifting of import of furnace oil from the Keamari terminal to Port Qasim (FOTCO) due to government guarantee given to the Port Qasim Authority for handling throughput of minimum four million metric tones per annum of furnace oil1 for which the Government paid $4.483/MT to FOTCO/Port Qasim.
In their rejoinder the plaintiff reiterated the same facts and further stated that Rule 30 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules 1971 had no application to the present case and the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No 3 on the principles of promissory estoppel and vested right was binding on the other defendants.
Barrister Farogh Nasim, representing the plaintiff, in his arguments, mainly urged that unilateral withdrawal of permission/no objection by the defendants Nos 1 & 2 was in violation of principles of natural justice as after grant of permission and execution of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No 3 vested rights were acquired by the defendant No 3 as well as by the plaintiff and on the principles of promissory estoppel, locus penetentiae as well as by virtue of section 21 of the General Clauses Act such rights were protected by law.
S. Amjad Husain, counsel for Shell Pakistan Ltd, adopted the arguments of Farogh Nasim and supported the case of the plaintiff.
Ziauddin Nasir, representing the defendants Nos 1 & 2, urged that the plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the withdrawal of “no objection” given by the defendants Nos 1 & 2 in favour of the defendant No 3. Even the defendant No 3 was not competent to agitate such grievance before this court, before exhausting departmental remedy available to him.
He also disputed the assertions of the plaintiff that by grant of permission to the defendant No 3 for import of furnace oil at Keamari, any vested right was either created in favour of the defendant No 3 for an indefinite period or, as such, in favour of the plaintiff.
He also urged that in view of section 56-(d) of the Specific Relief Act the relief claimed in the application could not be allowed.
Justice Jamali held that it was an admitted position that between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos 1 and 2 there was no privity of contract, and whatever status the plaintiff was claiming was through the defendant No 3. But the defendant No 3 had come forward to agitate a grievance in respect of the letter dated September 26, 2001.