1988 PLP 928 (CLC)

‑‑‑Person who was unfair and unjust held could not claim support of natural justice. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1987 The respondent filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the analysis of the Rice supplied by him under the Rice Procurement Scheme of 1965‑66 carried out by the Federal Government was illegal, void and ineffective and as a consequential relief prayed for issuance of an injunction restraining the petitioner from withholding the payments to him and from recovering any amount from him on the basis of the said analysis. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The following issues were framed:‑ (1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D (2) Whether the analysis made by the Central Government is arbitrary, and against the rules? O.P.P. (3) Whether the Central Government was empowered to make super inspection and analysis under the agreement between the parties? O . P . D . (3‑A) Whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the business firm in dispute and as such the registration under the partnership Act was not necessary? O.P.P. (4) Relief The issues were decided in favour of the respondent by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Gujranwala and the suit was decreed vide judgment, dated 27‑2‑1973. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala vide judgment, dated 9‑9‑1974. This revision petition has been filed against the said decree and judgment. I have perused the record and have heard arguments.

2. The findings on issues Nos. 1 and 3‑A are not challenged before me. The findings of the learned Courts below on issues Nos. 2 and 3 are concurrent and, therefore, it is to be seen whether there has been any misinterpretation of evidence on record or misapplication of the relevant law. So far as the Rice in dispute is concerned it was defective and there is no dispute about it because the respondent appearing as P.W.1 has conceded that the samples were taken from the Rice supplied by him and were sent to a laboratory at Lahore and that the same were found defective. This resulted in the imposition of cut in payments to him which the P.W. has stated, he accepted. That aspect is not disputed in the present suit. Therefore, one thing is clear that the Rice supplied by the respondent was defective. However, this related to the first inspection and the first analysis. Under paras. 34 and 37 of the Scheme relating to the Monopoly Procurement of Rice 1965‑66 the Central Government had a right to make a super inspection and for that matter to analyse samples from such Rice. As the report from Lahore had already shown that the Rice supplied by him were defective and a final inspection or a super inspection by the Government was called for. Samples were taken at Karachi by Muhammad Mahboob D.W. 2, an Assistant Director of Food. He states that the samples were taken from the Rice supplied by the respondent. These samples were analysed by Muhammad Tawwab, D.W.3, another Assistant Director, Food and his reports Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.18 show that the same were defective and were so defective that the same merited rejection. The said D.W.2 and D.W.3 were not subjected to any cross‑examination whatsoever although opportunity for the same was available to the respondent. Therefore, their evidence and the documents proved by them have gone uncontroverted and the same cannot be doubted. As a matter of fact if there was any doubt the respondent would have sought some sort of clarification from D.W.2 and D.W.3 through cross‑examination. . The said evidence oral and documentary proves that samples were taken from the Rice supplied by the respondent and that the same were duly analysed by D.W.3 and that the reports Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.18 regarding defence in the same are correct. As a consequence the rejection of the said Rice was rightly made. The only point taken by the respondent was that he was condemned unheard. The agreement EX.D.1 and the said Scheme of procurement do not contain any clause that while analysing the samples the supplier will be required to be present. The plea that on the principle of natural justice he should have been summoned during the said process has no legs to stand upon, first because there is no such requirement; contained in the agreement or in the scheme or procurement and. secondly because a supplier is never supposed to be present at the' time of analysis when the same is made at Lahore or at Karachi. He does .not plead that he was present or was required to be present at the time of analysis at Lahore. Similarly, his presence at the time of', analysis at Karachi was also not required. When it is proved that the samples were taken from the Rice supplied by the respondent and, when it is proved that the same were found to be so much defective so as to require the rejection of the Rice there can be no ground to set aside the rejection only on the ground of non‑participation of the respondent. The relief of declaration is an equitable relief and it is in the discretion of a Court to allow the same. A person who supplies; such a defective Rice plays with the life of the others and who supplies so defective Rice for export to other countries plays with the name of the country. No equitable relief in favour of such a cruel man can be exercised. He who is unfair and unjust cannot claim the support of natural justice. In any case no principle of natural justice was applicable in this case and no injustice was done, to him. Therefore, the findings of the learned Courts below on issues Nos. 2 and 3 are reversed. The revision petition is accepted and the suit of the respondent is dismissed with costs throughout.

3. Counsel fee Rs.500. M . Y . H . / G‑103/ L Petition accepted