Law: Law Reforms ACT, 1977

Section: 3(2)

 Summary

The appellant challenged the dismissal of its constitutional petition whereby orders suspending its wheat crushing quota and imposing recovery for low crushing were upheld. In the Intra-Court Appeal, the appellant contended that although a statutory appeal lay against suspension of quota under the Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, no appeal was provided against the recovery/penalty component; therefore, the ICA was maintainable to that limited extent. The Division Bench rejected this contention, holding that the original administrative order was composite in nature and arose from proceedings for which a statutory remedy was available. Consequently, the bar contained in Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was attracted. The ICA was held to be not maintainable and dismissed.

Tag Line

Intra-Court Appeal barred where impugned writ judgment arises from proceedings providing statutory appeal—composite administrative order cannot be bifurcated to circumvent Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.

This Intra-Court Appeal (“ICA”) is directed against judgment dated 22.09.2025 passed in W.P No.16207/2023, through which constitutional petition, filed by M/s Shan Flour & General Mills (“the appellant”) was dismissed. Challenge before the learned Judge-in-Chambers was laid to two orders of respondent No.3/Director Food, Punjab, Lahore dated 02.12.2020 and 03.08.2023.