Law:

Section:

  MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB J:- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, Asif Trading Company, has voiced its grievance against the inaction on the part of the respondents to grant permission for the export of livestock/live animals. 

2.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of exporting live animals to different countries since 2003; that the petitioner established its own quarantine house in Islamabad after permission in this regard was granted by respondent No.4 (Animal Quarantine Department); that in 2013, respondent No.2 (the Ministry of National Food Security and Research) gave permission to the petitioner to continue the export of live animals; that after the said permission was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner purchased live animals from the market, and deposited Rs.29,48,375/- for the export of 5,725 live animals from 12.04.2013 to 04.09.2013; that additionally the petitioner deposited Rs.28,50,900/- with respondent No.3 (the Federal Board of Revenue) as advance income tax; that quarantine certificates were also issued by respondent No.4, but these certificates have long expired; that on 23.01.2013, the Hon'ble Peshawar High Court had passed restraining orders against the commercial export of live animals and poultry in W.P. No.2169P/2013; that the Pakistan Poultry Association as well as the Animal and Meat Importers and Exporters Association of Pakistan challenged the said order dated 23.01.2013 in Civil Appeals No.388 and 1043 of 2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that the petitioner also joined the said proceedings by filing C.M.A. No.6658/2013; that vide order dated 12.05.2016, the said civil appeals were allowed and it was declared that the Hon'ble High Court had no jurisdiction to initiate a Suo Moto action; that consequently, the order dated 23.01.2013, passed by the Hon'ble High Court, was set-aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that respondent No.2’s review petition against the said order dated 12.05.2016, was dismissed; and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court declared that the parties who had filed applications for impleadment as parties to the said civil appeals have a right to be dealt with in accordance with the law.

3.     The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that vide notification S.R.O. No.344(I)/2016, dated 18.04.2016, Export Policy Order, 2016, was issued; that by virtue of the said notification, the subject of the export of live animals was taken away from the administrative control of respondent No.2 (the Ministry of National Food Security and Research), and given to respondent No.1 (the Ministry of Commerce and Trade); that the petitioner applied to respondent No.1 for permission to export live animals for which the fee and advance income tax had been deposited by the petitioner in 2013; and that the respondents have no justification in not permitting the petitioner to export live animals. The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to export live animals for which permission had already been granted in the year 2013.