Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: -----PLJ 2007 Lahore 722 [Multan Bench, Multan] ----Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977 – Sections 3, 6(2) – Constitution of Pakistan 1973 – Article 199 – Imposition of Penalty for Essential Commodities The petitioners challenged the authority of the Special Magistrate to impose a penalty under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, questioning whether fruit qualifies as an "essential commodity." The court held that fruit is not categorized as an essential commodity under the law. Consequently, the authority to impose penalties and recover fines depends on an order issued under Sections 3 and 6 of the Act, which did not exist in this case. ----Held: Since fruit is not classified as an essential commodity and no contravening order was in place, the respondents had no legal authority to impose or recover a fine from the petitioners. [Page 724] -----Background: The petitioners, engaged in the retail sale of fruit, challenged the authority of the respondents to impose and recover fines from them under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977. The petitioners contended that fruit had not been declared an essential commodity under the Act's schedule, which lists items subject to government price control. -----Issues: 1- Whether fruit is considered an essential commodity under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977. -----2- Whether the respondents have lawful authority to impose fines on fruit sellers under this Act. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that fruit is not listed as an essential commodity within the meaning of the Act. Item No. 7 in the schedule, which includes "aerated water, fruit juices, and squashes," does not extend to cover fruits. Since no order under Sections 3 or 6 of the Act existed for fruit as an essential commodity, the respondents lacked lawful authority to impose and collect fines from the petitioners. The court set aside the fines, declaring the respondents' actions void and ordering an immediate refund of the fines collected. -----Citations/Precedents: Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (particularly Sections 2, 3, 6, and the Schedule).

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending