1976 PLP 99 (SCMR)
CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents
| Citation | 1976 PLP 99 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ S. 21‑Challenge to validity of notice requiring furnishing of certain information‑‑‑Contention that petitioner was being put to trouble for visiting capital city to answer respondent Authority and rules of natural justice violated‑Notice not requiring personal attendance of petitioner to supply information in writing, no rule of natural justice being violated for not disclosing reasons necessitat ing information and no harm ensuing to petitioner by complying with notice and supplying necessary information, petition dismissed National Justice. |
| Bench Members | Salahuddin Ahmed and Anwarul Haq, JJ |
| Parties | CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 99 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ S. 21‑Challenge to validity of notice requiring furnishing of certain information‑‑‑Contention that petitioner was being put to trouble for visiting capital city to answer respondent Authority and rules of natural justice violated‑Notice not requiring personal attendance of petitioner to supply information in writing, no rule of natural justice being violated for not disclosing reasons necessitat ing information and no harm ensuing to petitioner by complying with notice and supplying necessary information, petition dismissed National Justice. bench comprising: Salahuddin Ahmed and Anwarul Haq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 99 (SCMR) (CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. K. 8rohi, Senior Advocate 3apreme Court (S. A. Sarwana, Advocate) instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 10th October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 27th of March 1975, passed in Mis cellaneous Application No. 2275 of 1974 in Constitutional Petition No. 1293 of 1974). ‑‑ S. 21‑Challenge to validity of notice requiring furnishing of certain information‑‑‑Contention that petitioner was being put to trouble for visiting capital city to answer respondent Authority and rules of natural justice violated‑Notice not requiring personal attendance of petitioner to supply information in writing, no rule of natural justice being violated for not disclosing reasons necessitat ing information and no harm ensuing to petitioner by complying with notice and supplying necessary information, petition dismissed [National Justice].
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. ‑A notice dated the 27th of September 1974, under section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, was issued upon the petitioner by the Monopoly Control Authority, Government of Pakistan (respondent No. 2 herein) asking the former to furnish certain information. The petitioner challenged the validity of this notice in a Constitution petition filed before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan and also filed an application for staying the operation of the notice pending the hearing of the petition. The main ground upon which the notice was challenged was that the respondent's action was ultra vires of his powers under the said Ordinance. The Constitution Petition has already been admitted for hearing. The application for staying the operation of tae notice was however rejected by the High Court. It has been contended before the High Court on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was being put to trouble for visiting Islamabad in order to answer the said respondent and that the rules of natural justice had been violated. As to first the impugned notice did not require the petitioner appear personally to supply the information in writing. As regards the 'second there was no question of the contravention of any rule of natural justice for it was not required by the respondent to give to the petitioner reasons why the said information was required, as claimed by the petitioner. In our opinion, tile application was rightly to the petitioner if it complies with the said notice and supplies the necessary information in this respect. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner has prayed that the High Court should be asked to hear his Constitution Petition at an early date, It tray approach the High Court if it is so advised. Petition dismissed.