P L D 1976 Karachi 830 (PLP)

Z. A. CHANNA, J.-The dispute in this Constitutional petition relates to. Quarter No. 142/6-5-G, North Karachi Township. This quarter was allotted to Wali Mohammad, the father of petitioner Yar Mohammad, vide allot ment order dated 24-1-1973. Wali Mohammad has since died, leaving. petitioner in possession of the quarter. It is claimed by the petitioner that his father has paid the entire lease money of the quarter and he is, therefore. entitled to possession of the quarter. It appears that the K. D. A. had allotted the very same quarter to one Hidayatullah as far back on 19-1-1964 and Hidayatullah has also paid the full price for the quarter. His allotment order, however, was cancelled and as already stated that quarter was allotted to Wali Mohammad, the father o! the present petitioner. Wali Mohammad died sometime in 1973 and by its letter dated 20-10-1973. Respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the allotment order in favour of petitioner's father Wali Mohammad had been cancelled by the competent authority, which had upheld the old allotment order dated 9-1-1964 in favour of Hidayatullah and consequently, the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter within seven days.

2. The point which is for consideration in the instant case is whether the petitioner's allotment order was cancelled without notice or giving himan opportunity to show cause against the cancellation. The petitioner has specifically stated in the grounds in support of his Petition that no notice or opportunity to show cause was given to him. We have specifically asked Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash, learned Assistant Legal Adviser for the K. D. A., whether any notice was issued to the petitioner before the allotment order in his favour was cancelled. Mr. Qizalbash frankly conceded that on the record, which is available with him, no show-cause notice appears to have been: issued to the petitioner before the order of cancellation was made. He,. however, referred us to the letter of the Administrative Officer of the K. D. A. dated 20-10-1973. This letter, however, merely indicates to the petitioner that the allotment order in favour of his father has been cancelled, that the allotment in favour of Hidayatullah has been restored and that the petitioner should vacate the quarter within seven days. This action cannot be con sidered to be a show-cause notice.

3. We also requested Mr. Ismail Munshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, to refer us to any show-cause notice which may have been issued to the petitioner or his father, but he also was unable to refer us to any such notice. Mr. Ismail Munshi, however, tried the contend that the petitioner's father was all along associated in the enquiry which was held by the K. D. A. We are unable to agree with his submission, because there is no such material on record, which is placed before us, to support his contention. Various documents have been filed by the respondent No. 2 along with his counter-affidavit, but from none of them can it be inferred that the petitioner's father either had notice of the proceedings or was associated with the proceedings leading to the cancellation of the allotment order. Respondent No. 2 has filed a notice which was issued to him by Res pondent No. 1 on 12-7-1973. If any similar notice had been issued to the petitioner or his father, the same would also have been produced either by Respondent No. 1 or by Respondent No.

2. It may also be mentioned that Respondent .No. 1, i.e. K. D. A. has not specifically denied the assertion made by the petitioner that no notice was issued to him nor any opportunity was given to him to show cause against the cancellation of his allotment.

4. We are accordingly satisfied that neither any notice was issued to the petitioner or his father relating to the cancellation of the quarter in question nor he was associated with the proceedings taken by the Respondent No. 1, which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment order.

5. It was next contended by Mr. Ismail Munshi that according to the terms of the allotment order no show-cause notice was necessary. He referred us to the third condition of the allotment order which provides that the allotment order was subject to cancellation without any reason. Mr. Ismail Munshi wanted us to consider the provision as if it provides that the can cellation may be done without notice. We are not satisfied with this contention. We do not consider that this condition does so provides or does away with the necessity of show-cause notice. The mere fact that an allotment order could be cancelled without giving reason does not abrogate the rule of natural justice that the aggrieved party has to be heard before an order A affecting his right 9s passed. The allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner's father conferred an important right upon him. In fact the reason given by Respondent No. 1, in its letter dated 17-10-1973, for cancelling the allotment in favour of petitioner's father was that the old allotment order in favour of Hidayatullah had been cancelled without notice to him, and such cancellation, according to the legal advice received by the K. D. A., was illegal. We are of the opinion that the K. D. A., while cancelling the allot ment order in favour of the petitioner, should have given the petitioner a show-cause notice, as was suggested by its Legal Adviser in respect of respondent Hidayatullah.

6. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1, being against the rule of natural justice, is declared illegal and without jurisdiction. We accordingly quash the same and allow the petition but with no order as to costs. It will of course be open to Respondent No. 1 to re hear the entire matter, after giving due notice both to the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, and after considering any representation or material which they may wish to make or produce, to pass an appropriate order. I. MAHNUD, J.-I agree. S. Q. Petition allowed.