1984 PLP 2100 (CLC)

Art. 9 Natural justice, principles of Maxim : Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard) Respondent cancel-ling allotment of land without proper notice to allottee and serving no show-cause notice on him before cancellation Held : Person deciding case must inform other of allegations against him Such person cannot act on undisclosed material or advice and to validate his order he must inform parties of all that material or evidence on which he would act Such order, held, without lawful authority. [Maxim]. JUDGMENT HAIDER ALI PIRZRDA, J. This Constitutional Petition calls in question an order, dated 28th May, 1972 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thatta, respondent No. 2, cancelling the allotment of 24 acres of agricultural and Survey No. 35 of Deh Karolo, Tapo Khan, Taluka Ghorabari, District Thatta, which has been granted to the petitioner.

2. The facts, which form the background of this petition are briefly stated as under:

3. Prior to March, 1973 the petitioner cultivated and was in possession of 12 Acres of agricultural land which was further increased to 20 more Acres in one year and five years as lessee and the whole land, having been developed by his own resources.

4. In 1973 when Karolo Co-operative Farming Society, Deh Karolo, Taluka Ghorabari, was extended, the petitioner became a member of the same by depositing the membership fee of Rs. 525 on 22nd March, 1973 after receipt of letter, dated 21st March, 1973 and receipts of depositing membership-fee are annexed to the petition as Annexures `A' and B'. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies by letter No. B/1703, dated 19th March, 1973 allotted 24 Acres to the petitioner. The possession thereof was handed over to him. After taking possession the petitioner developed by spending huge amount to cultivate the same.

5. The respondent No. 1 by an order, dated 28th May, 1979 cancelled the allotment of 24 Acres of agricultural land. The petitioner filed the present constitutional petition and obtained status quo order from this Court.

6. We have heard Mr. S. Abbas Zia, the learned counsel for the peti tioner and Mr. Ahmed Saeed Qureshi, the learned counsel for the respondent No.

3. The grounds urged by Mr. Abbas Zia in support of the petition, firstly, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause or represent the case before the allotment was cancelled and, secondly, that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have acted in a mala fide, unjust and arbitrary manner.

7. Mr. Ahmad Saeed Qureshi on the other hand, relied upon bye-law No. 18 of the Deh Karolo Co-operative Farming Society, Limited. His precise argument was that under the bye-law No. 18 members shall be admitted by the vote of the Board. The petitioner never applied for membership of the farming society. He contended that the petitioner had failed to become member of the society and, therefore, allotment of the agricultural land was rightly cancelled. He further contended that the cancellation WAS made after the issuance of the show-cause notice to him.

8. On examination of the documents, it is not clear as to whether show-cause notice was actually delivered to the petitioner. It is also not clear from the documents available on the record whether the procedure for enrolment was followed or not. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to deposit the membership fee which was duly complied by the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 in support of his con tention that the principle audi alteram partem has not been violated has drawn our attention to Annexure R-8 and R-9 to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Annexure R-8 was not received by the peti tioner and in any case the respondent No. 2 requested him to appear before him. He further contended that Annexure R-9 referred to the enquiry held by the Deputy Registrar for which no notice we served. From the reading of the above letter Annexure R-1, it is clear that the enquiry was held by the Deputy Registrar.

10. The conclusions to be drawn from the above is, that the person deciding a case must inform the person of the allegations against him. He cannot act on undisclosed material or advice and to validate his order he' must inform the parties of all that material or evidence on which he would act. The facts given above show that the notice referred to above did not comply with these requirements and in fact no show-cause notice was given by the authority competent to pass the cancellation order.

11. We are, therefore, of the view that impugned order of cancellation of allotment has not been passed in accordance with law and there has been violation of principles of audi alteram partem. We, therefore, declare that the impugned order is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. For these reasons by a short order, dated 9th August, 1983 the petition was allowed.

12. We direct that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and any other functionary of the Karolo Co-operative Farming Society and hear the case in regard to cancellation of membership and allotment of the petitioner afresh, with particular reference to any powers that the officers of the Co-operative Department have, or, had in respect of enrolment of members, or, allotment of land. The parties shall bear their own costs. M. B. A. Case remanded. ***