2005 P T D 172

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ

ADEEL-UR-REHMAN and others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Civil Petitions Nos.2648 to 2650 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003 in Civil Petition No. Nil of 2003, decided on 17/05/2004.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-10-2003 of High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C. Ps. Nos.D-703, 704 and 770 of 2003 etc.)

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art.129(e)---Official .acts---Presumption---Although presumption of regularity is attached to official acts and documents yet when genuineness of documents is doubtful, the Court has power to look into their correctness and validity.

Ch. Pervaiz Elahi v. Province of Punjab PLD 1993 Lah. 595 ref.

(b) Good governance---

---- Public health---Principle---Question of public health cannot be left at the discretion of persons who, for their vested interest, can go to any extent.  

(c) Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2002-2003---

----Para.6, Appendix A---Customs Rules, 2001, R.226(7)---Pakistan Customs Tariff Heading 0802.9010---Notification. S.R.O. 450(I)2001, dated 18-6-2001---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Betel nuts, import 'of---Infested consignment not fit for human consumption-- Authorities declined to release the consignments of importers for the reason that according to laboratory reports the same were infested to varying degrees and were not fit for human consumption---Plea raised by the importers was that on the basis of 9.10% infestation, the authorities could not declare the entire consignment unfit for human consumption-- Further plea raised by the importers was that by appropriate process the infestation could be removed and remaining 90.90% consignment could be-made fit for human consumption---Validity---According to Pakistan Customs Tariff; betel nuts were covered under Heading 0802.9010 as edible product---All edible products which were not fit for human consumption were banned items as mentioned in Negative List in Appendix A of Import Policy issued under Para.6 of Import Trade and Procedures Order 2002-2003 which restricted import of such items---Importers had conceded before High Court that 9.10% of infested consignment could not be segregated visually from the entire consignment; segregation could only be made by cutting each betel nut into two parts; and monitoring of separation was not possible---In view of such admission, the test reports (procured by importers) could not be straightaway believed and further investigation about propriety and correctness of report was necessary and same could only be done after the Experts entered the witness box---Importers had not come to the Court with clean hands as they had done whatever possibly they could do to get the consignments released, irrespective of the fact that if released, it could cause `candida albicans' (a serious infectious disease and mould which was another name of allergies caused by fungus and liver cancer)---Importers had not even hesitated to submit fake reports for achieving their purpose---Leave to appeal was refused.

Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 552; Messrs Onkarlal Nadal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1986 SC 2146; Burmah Oil v. Trustees of the Port of Chittagong PLD 1962 SC 113; H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. PLD 1969 SC 65; M.Y. Khan v. M.M. Aslam 1974 SCMR 196; Fazle Ghafoor v. Chairman Tribunal Land Disputes 1993 SCMR 1073; M. A. Rashid Rana v. Secretary Home, Government of Punjab 1996 SCMR 1145 and Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 1072 distinguished.

Foundations in Microbiology by Kathleep Talaro and Arthur Talalro, 2nd Edn., William C Brown Publishers, London, pp. 146, 535 and 698 and Tobacco Role in the Aetiology of Oral Cancer, Periodontal Disease and other Oral Lesions" by Doctor Heddie O. Sedano published by Periodontics Information Centre, University of California, Los Angeles, p.5 ref.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Art.9---Word `life'---Interpretation---Word `life' in the Constitution has not been used in a limited manner---Wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it---Duty of the State is to see that the life of a person is protected as to enable him to enjoy it within the prescribed limits of law---Pollution, environmental degradation and impure food items also fall in the category of deprivation of life.

Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 ref.

Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. Ps. Nos. 2648 to 2650 of 2003).

Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003).

Abdul Hafeez Prizada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Ms. Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court, Standing Counsel for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th May, 2004.

JUDGMENT

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDQUI, C.J.---This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2648, 2649 and 2650 of 2003 and C.M.As. Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003. In C.P. No. 2648 of 2003, Adeel-ur- Rehman is the petitioner and Federation of Pakistan and the Collector of Customs are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Similar is the position in C.P. No. 2650 of 2003. In C.P. No. 2649 of 2003, Waseem- ur-Rehman is the petitioner and the respondents are the same. In C.M.A. No. 3165 of 2003, Messrs Nisar Food Industries are the petitioners and the respondents are: as above. In C.M.A. No.3167 of 2003, Messrs Shalimar Food Products are the petitioners and the respondents are as mentioned earlier.

2. C.Ps. Nos. D-703, 704, 770, 914, 934, 1132, 1133 and 1134 of 2003 were disposed of by a learned Division Bench, High Court of Sindh by a common judgment, dated 7-10-2003 in the following terms:--

"(i) All petitions are disposed of as not maintainable.

(ii) Respondent No.2 shall not release any consignment of betel nuts imported by the Petitioners as undertaken and assured by the learned DAG on 16-7-2003 until the issue whether the betel nuts are fit for human consumption has been decided by a competent Court of law after recording evidence.

(iii) The petitioners, if advised, may file suits to obtain the verdict regarding the release of the goods by the Respondents.

(iv) The trial Court while deciding the suits shall also consider the various Microbiological Analysis Reports filed in these Petitions including the Aga Khan Reports, dated 17-9-2003.

Before concluding, it would be appropriate to mention- here that two sets of Reports, namely, one set of Reports, dated 15-9-2003 and the other set, dated 17-9-2003 were received from the Aga Khan University Laboratory and according to the statements made by Ms. Shahida Qureshi and Dr. Rumina Hasan the alleged Analysis Reports, dated 15-9-2003 are fake while the Analysis Reports, dated 17-9-2003 are genuine. We are shocked to note that fake Reports originated from the Age Khan University Hospital Laboratory, an organization of high repute, which casts a bad reflection on the said Hospital and its services. We would therefore direct the Official Assignee to write to Mr. Shams Kassim Lakha, President of the Age Khan University Hospital stating all the facts with the direction to conduct an inquiry as to how and by whom the fake Analysis Reports were issued by their Laboratory and to take appropriate action against the person(s) found guilty of the malfeasance. The Report of the investigation conducted shall be submitted within two months to this Court, which shall be placed before a Bench of which at least one of us is a member."

3. Learned High Court, while disposing of above petitions, took C.P. No.D-703/2003 (subject matter of C.P.L.A. No.2648 of 2003 before this Court) as the leading case. Basically, the facts are common of these matters. Petitioner Adeel-ur-Rehman is dealing in the business of import and export of the commodities, i.e. agricultural products, such as areca nuts (betel nuts) for the last several decades. It is alleged that as per Import and Trade Procedures Order; 2002-2003, the betel nuts (HS Code 8-02) not being an edible item and on the contrary being an agricultural product, the same as per practice were being released by the respondent No.2 on payment of scheduled duty.

4. It is claimed that the Department of Plant Protection (hereinafter called the DOPP), Ministry of Food and Agriculture issues release order upon submission of a Phytosanitary Certificate by the concerned Government department of country of origin wherefrom the goods are shipped. Thereafter, the DOPP issues release order to the respondent No.2, which in turn allows release of the consignment. It is averred that on 10-3-2003 the petitioner opened a Letter of Credit bearing No.122249 for the import of betel nuts and on 11-3-2003 got the import permit from the DOPP. Further, it is alleged that the petitioner submitted the documents to the respondent No.2 on arrival of the consignment on 22-4-2003, but said respondent as against the practice of over decades, detained the consignment illegally. It is said that the respondent No.2 ordered the examination of the consignment through Appraising Intelligence Branch (AIB), drew samples and sent the same to H.E.J. Research Institute of Chemistry (hereinafter called HEJ) for test on 26-4-2003. The said laboratory submitted report declaring that the betel nuts were infested with insect as 8.9% and further noted that those betel nuts were found to have a low microbiological load within the specified limits for food items.

5. According to the petitioner, thereafter the betel nuts were got tested from the PCSIR Laboratories Complex vide report, dated 19-5-2003. Thereafter, the DOPP issued release Order No., 56, dated 19-5-2003 but the respondent No.2 declined to release the consignment. The petitioner then filed C.P. No.D-703 of 2003 before High Court and, the same was dismissed with the observations that the petitioner could approach Civil Court and the matter could only be decided after the evidence was recorded. The petition now has come to this Court.

6. In C.P. No.2649 of 2003, the facts more or less are identical. Same is the actual position with regard to C.P. No. 2650 of 2003.

7. The facts in C.M.A. No.3165 of 2003, in brief, are that the petitioners are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture and sale of `Allaichi Saunf Supari' (sweetened areca/betel nus) marketed under the brand names `Nisar Allaichi Saunf Supari' and super toto sweet Supari. It is alleged that one of the ingredients of soft Supari and sweet Supari is betel nuts and the same is imported by the petitioners, primarily from Thailand or the imported betel nuts are purchased from local market.

8. It is alleged that the petitioners had imported a consignment of betel nuts from Thailand vide Bill of Entry No. IGM 860/2003, dated 2-6-2003, Index No. 8 and sought its clearance as per Bill of Entry Machine No. H.C. 142788, dated 2-6-2003. A release order issued by the DOPP, dated 10-6-2003 was also furnished along with a report issued by PCSIR Laboratories Complex, which clearly provided that the consignment was fit for human consumption from a microbiological viewpoint. Samples from said consignment were sent for testing to H.E.J. by the respondent No.2 and the report issued by said Institute certified that the betel nuts were found to be 93.5% non-infested, low microbiological load (below specified limit for food items), and were round in condition. It is claimed that in spite of above, the respondent No.2, without any reason, refused to clear above consignment and ignored the reports of PCSIR Laboratories Complex and H.E.J. The petitioners have asserted that although they were not a party in the petitions that were disposed of by learned High Court vide judgment, dated 7-10-2003, but being adversely affected they have filed this CMA on the ground that aforesaid judgment of High Court is an impediment in their way for getting any relief from Court of law.

9. More or less the facts of C.M.A. No. 3167 of 2003 are identical with the exception of consignment number, bill of entry, etc.

10. It is contended in above Civil Petitions by Dr. Babas Awan, Advocate Supreme Court that learned High Court was not justified ^to have disposed of the petitions in terms quoted above, that on the basis of 9.10% infestation, the entire consignment could not be declared unfit for human consumption, that such infestation could be removed by appropriate process to make the remaining 90.90% fit for human consumption, that High, Court could not issue direction to the petitioners to approach Civil Court for seeking relief, that the Customs Authorities could not ignore die past practice, particularly, in presence of-the report; dated 19-5-2003 of PCSIR Laboratories Complex,- that the betel nuts could not be treated as a final product, as such, the question of being edible in the present form did not arise.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the documents at pages 79, 80, 83, 156, 158, 210, 211, 213 and 217 (paper book of C.P. No. 2648 of 2003). The document at page 79 is a report of PCSIR Laboratories Complex. It is dated 19-5-2003. According to it, the given sample of betel nuts was fit for human consumption from microbiological viewpoint. The document at page 80 is a letter, dated 19-5-2003 of the DOPP. It, is a release order and states that plant and plant products were found apparently free from injurious insects and diseases. At page 83 is a letter, dated 21-7-2001. It speaks about method of testing the betel nuts, and states that it is' a very complicated procedure. Further, it states that Customs House Laboratory is no: equipped to conduct such type of bacteriological testing. In the last, it mentions that on the basis of certification by the Karachi Kiryana Merchant Association the goods were released: At page 156 is a letter, dated 12-7-2003 from the Industrial Analytical Centre. It mentions that the given sample of betel nuts was found infested with insects 9.4 %. At page 158 is another report, which states that the given sample of betel nuts was found infested with insects 9.8%. At page 210 is a report from the Aga Khan University Hospital. It mentions that the sample was bacteriologically satisfactory. At page 211 is another report from above mentioned hospital and states that the sample was microbiologically unsatisfactory. At page 213 is another report saying that the sample submitted was microbiologically unsatisfactory. At page 217/A is an order of this Court passed on Miscellaneous Application No. 1857-L of 2003 in C.P. No. 2063-L of 2003. According to it, the betel nuts were found fit for human consumption as per laboratory reports submitted before the Court. Consequently the consignment on payment of usual taxes and duties was ordered to be released without any delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the case reported as Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 -PTD 552. The relevant portion of it reads-as under:-

"In our opinion the provision does not in any way authorize the Customs officer to confiscate the goods under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 if the sample does not meet the. PSI specifications. In this respect we are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No. 288-K of 2000, Collector of Customs v. Batala Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., wherein the learned Court in its Order, dated 9-2-2001 while discussing the powers of the Customs Authority to confiscate the goods under section 199 of the Customs Act observed as follows:--

"We have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the provisions of section 199 of the Customs Act, perusal whereof indicates that Customs authorities are empowered to-determine after taking the samples of the imported goods whether declaration has been made correctly or otherwise and if they come to the conclusion that the misdeclaration has been made, then they can initiate proceedings against the importers under the provisions of the Customs Act. As far as the question whether the goods imported are fit for the human consumption is concerned, it does not fall within the domain of the Customs authorities and if there is evidence on record that the commodity/goods imported is being sold in the market, which is not fit for this purpose, in such situation matter will be referred to the authorities having jurisdiction under the relevant law Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, etc. to take cognizance of the offence and decide the case accordingly. But as far as functionaries of the Customs Department are concerted, they have nothing to do so far as the violation of other law is concerned."

Though the above observations of the Honourable Supreme Court were made prior to the insertion of Clause H-1 in the Negative List, the principle still holds good and if any product which in its imported or raw form is not fit for human consumption but can be made fit for human consumption after carrying out the due treatment/process in Pakistan, in our considered view, would not fall in the Negative List as explained above and would also not be covered by section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. "

The case of the respondent No.2 is that only points of facts are involved and the same being disputed could not be resolved in writ petition, that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, are not entitled to discretionary relief, that since the issue of public health is involved, the goods could not be released till its decision by the competent authority. Giving the background, the respondent stated that in second week of December, 2002, a consignment of betel nuts of Indonesian origin was intercepted before delivery at the port and it had bad quality and the samples were sent to H.E.J. and the report was as follows:--

"The provided sample of betel nuts is dangerous to human health. The nuts are heavily infected with insects and micro organisms. Moles and yeast are also clearly visible. Import of this dangerous, material for any use represents the worst trade practices. The material is not fit for human consumption and should be immediately destroyed. "

Further information revealed that Indonesian origin betel nuts were mostly of bad quality, as such, all the consignments were invariably sent to H.E.J. for test. The result obtained in this behalf from H.E.J. established the correctness of the information because all the consignments were found to be infested to varying degrees, some such as 100%. Looking to the report of H.E.J a question arose as to how to interpret the result with varying percentage of infestation with regard to the act if said betel nuts were "fit for human consumption" or otherwise. In response to above query, H.E.J. replied and explained as follows:--

(a)	10 % or more insect infestation.	Potentially unfit for human consumption (microbiological load low or high in both cases).
(b)	Less than 10% infestation with low microbiological load.	Can be consumed after careful discarding of theinfested/infected parts.
(c)	High microbiological load.	Unfit for human consumption.

12. Mr. Abdul Hafiz Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, in his arguments, supported the impugned judgment and referred to sections 16 and 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, the Pakistan Plant Quarantine Act, 1976 and S.R.O. No.489(I)/2000, dated 17-7-2000. Section 16 of the Customs Act says that the Federal Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, prohibit or restrict the bringing into or taking out of Pakistan any goods of specified description by AIR, sea or land. Section 196 speaks about appeal to High Court as substituted and added by Ordinance No.XXVII of 2002, dated 1-7-2002 by Act No.II of 2004, dated 1-7-2004 respectively. Section 3 of the imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 empowers the Federal Government to prohibit or restrict import and export as in detail mentioned in said section. Section 2(f) of the Pakistan Plant Quarantine Act, 1976 gives the definition of `plant' as under:--

"'plant' means all species of plants or parts thereof whether living or dead including stems, branches, tubers, bulbs, corms, stocks, budwood, cuttings, layers, slips, suckers, roots, green -scum on stagnant pools, leaves, flowers, fruits and seeds."

S.R.O. No.489(I)/2000 lays down the Import Trade and Procedure Order, 2000.

13. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the applicants in C.M.As. Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003 cited the following cases:--

(1) Messrs Onkarlal Nandal v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1986 SC 2146); (2) Burmah Oil v. Trustees of the Port of Chittagong (PLD 1962 SC 113); (3) H.M. Saya & Co. v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. (PLD 1969 SC 65); (4) M.Y. Khan v. M.M. Aslam (1974 SCMR 196); (5) Fazle Ghafoor v. Chairman Tribunal Land Disputes (1993 SCMR 1073); (6) Ch. Pervaiz Elahi v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1993 Lahore 595); (7) M.A. Rashid Rana v. Secretary Home, Government of Punjab (1996 SCMR 1145) and (8) Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1072).

In the case at serial No. 1, Article 136 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Sales Tax Act were under consideration. It was held that direct appeal to Supreme Court against order of Commercial Tax Officer ordinarily was not maintainable, but such appeal, however, could be entertained when appeal to High Courr would be futile as it had already taken a particular view. In the case at serial No.2, one of the points was which one, the writ or suit was more convenient for decision of the matter. It was held that in case of infringement of fiscal right based on statutory instrument, the writ of mandamus was proper remedy. In the case at serial No.3, it was held that a stranger to a suit or proceedings is competent to file appeal if he is adversely affected by order in such suit or proceedings.

14. In the case at serial No.4, it was held that investigation in complicated questions of fact normally should be left to be done by the authorities concerned, but the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction, can take evidence or even additional evidence when such evidence is necessary. In the case at serial No.5, it was observed that decision could be rendered on the `high probability principle' in cases where evidence in stricto senso was not available. In the case at serial No.6, the rule laid down is that presumption of regularity is attached' to all official acts and documents, but such presumption is rebuttable. The case at serial No.7 relates to a service matter, which was before Punjab Service Tribunal. It was held that Supreme Court in appropriate cases may permit filing of an appeal by a person who may 'not be a party before the Tribunal, if the Court is of the opinion that interest of such party has been adversely affected by the judgment of the Tribunal. The principle laid down in the case at serial No. 8 is that in case of Constitutional jurisdiction, non-exhausting of other remedies is a rule of convenience and discretion by which the Court regulates its proceedings. Said rule is not a rule of law affecting the jurisdiction. Constitutional Petition is competent if an order is passed by a Court or authority by exceeding its jurisdiction even if the remedy of appeal or revision against such order is available.

15. The cases cited by Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court are not applicable. Here the question is of protection of human life and not of recovery of sales tax nor of infringement of fiscal rights based on statutory instruments. Since the material facts are in dispute, the same need to be resolved before availing the writ jurisdiction. Straightaway C.M.As. Nos. 3165 and 3167 of 2003 could not be filed before this Court nor on the basis of "high probability principle" the decision could be rendered by this Court. For doing complete justice in terms of Article 187 of the Constitution, this Court has power to pass necessary order in that regard. It is true that a presumption of regularity is attached to official acts and documents, but when the genuineness of the documents is doubtful, the Court has power to look into their correctness and validity.

16. A close scrutiny of the facts reveals that primarily the fate of these petitions depends upon the contradictory reports submitted by the various laboratories. The Customs Authorities were not able to comprehend reports of the H.E.J. and its recommendations, as such, sought clarification in the terms that since certain percentage of betel nuts was found to be infested and that portion has been reported to be not fit for human consumption, as such, if the remaining portion, having been found to have low microbiological load below the specified limit of food items, could be consumed or not. The query was replied by the Institute stating that betel nuts are agricultural produce of blended origin and no infestation could make the entire consignment potentially unfit for human consumption'. It was further explained that in case of betel nuts due to their small size and large quantities it was not possible to visually separate the infested parts from non-infested one.

17. The petitioners, however, succeeded in getting the reports from different laboratories that infestation was less than 10% and the infested/infected parts if discarded, the remaining portion could be used. The reports specifically state that high microbiological load was unfit for human consumption. The authenticity of the reports, under the circumstances, is extremely doubtful. The possibility that these reports were managed could not be ruled out. The question of public health could not be left at the discretion of persons, who for their vested interest, could go to any extent. The plea of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Collectorate as a matter of rule should have followed past practice and cleared the goods after the submission of clearance certificate issued by the DOPP is not correct for the simple reason that such certificate by itself is not a conclusive proof of the correctness of the contents noted therein. The DOPP also either inadvertently or for mala fide reason could issue a false certificate. It is true that normally such certificate be respected, but nevertheless its bona fides can always be challenged if the circumstances so warrant. It is significant to note that insects are not inside the betel nuts, but the effects of infestation continue to exist, which by passage of time go on increasing.

18. It is established from record that according to the Pakistan Customs Tariff betel nuts are covered under the heading "0802.9010" and this is affirmed by the fact that bills of entry for clearance of goods were submitted under above heading as edible product and all edible products, which are not fit for human consumption, are banned items (Negative List is Appendix A of the Import Policy issued under paragraph 6 of the Import Trade and Procedures Order, 2002-2003, which restricts import of such items:

19. Sub-rule (7) of Rule 226 under Sub-Chapter (C) titled "Export Processing Zone" of the Customs Rules, 2001 made applicable through Notification No. S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 clearly provides as under:

(7) Admission of goods imported for a Zone shall not be refused except when the goods are liable to restrictions or prohibitions imposed on the grounds of public morality or order, public security hygiene or health or for veterinary or phytopathological consideration, or relating to the protection of patents, trade marks or copyrights. "

It is evident that the Collector of Customs has jurisdiction on the basis of above rule.

20. Mr. Raja Qureshi, who appeared before High Court in Petitions Nos. D-1132 to 1134 of 2003, during the course of arguments, conceded as follows:--

(i) In the present state 9.10% infested betel nuts cannot be segregated visually from the entire consignment.

(ii) That 9.10% can be segregated after cutting each betel nuts into two parts.

(iii) Monitoring of separation is not possible.

In view of above frank admissions, the test reports could not be straightaway believed and further investigation about propriety and correctness of the reports was necessary and it could only be done after the Experts entered the witness box.

21. It is significant to note that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. They had done whatever possibly they could do to get the consignments released, irrespective of the fact that if released, it could cause "candida albicans", a serious infectious disease and moulds, which is another name of allergies caused by fungus and liver cancer [See "Foundations in Microbiology" by Kathleep Talro and Arthur Talalro, Second Edition, William C Brown Publishers, London, pages 146, 535 and 698]. Besides, medical studies have shown that chewing of Paan containing betel nuts and other sweeteners causes sub mucous fibrosis, which cause oral cancer [See "Tobacco Role in the Aetiology of Oral Cancer, Periodontal Disease and other Oral Lesions" by Doctor Heddie O. Sedano published by Periodontics Information Centre, University of California, Los Angeles, page 5]. The petitioners have not even hesitated to submit fake reports for achieving their purpose.

22. The case reported as Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (supra) is distinguishable. The Customs Authorities now, in view of Notification No. S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 have jurisdiction in the matter. Besides, Article 9 of the Constitution dealing with a Fundamental Right provides that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty save in accordance with law. The word `life' has been interpreted in the case reported as Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693) as under:--

"The word `life' in the Constitution has not been used in a limited manner. A wide meaning should be given to enable a man not only to sustain life but to enjoy it."

It is the duty of the State to see that the life of a person is protected as to enable him to enjoy it within the prescribed limits of law. Pollution, environmental degradation and impure food items also fall in the category of deprivation of life.

23. On 17-5-2004 these petitions and C.M.Ns. were dismissed by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.

M.H./A-77/SCPetitions dismissed.