KARACHI, April 17: The Sindh High Court asked the petitioner milkmen’s association on Thursday to explain whether it was empowered by its charter to indulge in litigation and adjourned further hearing of its petition against fixation and enforcement of prices by the city district government to April 23.

Advocate M. Naimur Rahman, counsel for All Karachi Milk Retailers Welfare Association, submitted that the association had been set up to promote the welfare of milk retailers and it was fully competent to litigate their grievances. Besides, the association passed a resolution before moving a writ petition in the high court to challenge the city government’s actions. In any case, the respondent city government has not objected to the petition on this ground, he contended.

Justices Azizullah M. Memon and Arshad Noor Khan, who constitute the bench seized of the petition, however, pointed out that the memorandum and articles of the association annexed to the petition did not authorize it to pursue their demands or claims by litigious challenges.

CDGK counsel Manzoor Ahmed submitted that the association’s lack of competence was among the preliminary objections raised by him against the maintainability of the petition. However, the court decided to proceed with hearing of the petition on merits without resolving the issue of the petitioner’s competence. He said he would address further arguments on the matter.

Concluding his arguments earlier, Advocate Rahman said the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, under which the city government was proceeding, has since been superseded by the Sindh Essential Commodities (Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding) Act, 2006. Under the 2006 law, only the provincial government could fix prices of essential commodities.

Besides, the city government could fix prices only after consulting all the stakeholders. The city government was utilizing the provisions of both the laws to enforce its writ. It was fixing prices under the 1977 law and inflicting penalties under the 2006 legislation, which provided for harsher punishments.

CDGK counsel Manzoor Ahmed said the 1977 federal enactment was a valid, subsisting law. If there were federal and provincial laws on the same subject, the federal legislation would prevail in case of conflict. There were some discrepancies but there was no conflict between the two enactments as both are aimed at control of prices and prevention of hoarding and profiteering. The laws were intended to ensure supply of essential commodities at reasonable rates and protect the public from unscrupulous traders and market manipulators.

Bail granted