2002 PLP 1405 (CLC)

This petition, has been filed to challenge order, dated 4‑8‑1997 passed by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation respondent No. 1 cancelling the petitioner's licence to act as a Nikah Registrar:

2. Despite service of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Hence they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

3. The petitioner's‑ learned counsel contends that the petitioner's licence was cancelled without issuing any notice to him or affording him an opportunity of being heard; that the entire action was taken in the secrecy of the office; that initially on a query made by the Chief Corporation Officer the office made a report that the petitioner had shitted his residence from Mohallah Nigahban Pura Ward No. 1688 to Mohallah Dhaddi Wal at a distance of about two miles and that the residents of the Mohallah had made a number of complaints against him. This report was forwarded to the Administrator who agreed with it and cancelled the petitioner's licence arbitrarily without affording him an opportunity of being heard.

4. The licence to act as Nikah Registrar is granted under the provisions of rule 7 of the West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance. It is permanent in nature and can be revoked only for A the violation of any of the conditions of licence. It is so provided under subsection (3) of section 7 of the Ordinance which reads as under: ‑‑ "A licence granted under this rule shall be permanent and shall be revocable only for the contravention of any of the conditions of a licence granted under this rule." In the present case the petitioner was granted the licence to act as Nikah Registrar on 2‑3‑1993. The licence was cancelled by respondent No. 1 without giving the petitioner an. opportunity of being heard. The petitioner had no opportunity to show that he had not shifted his residence from Mohallah Nigahban Pura Ward No.1688 of the Union Council No. 14, Sargodha Road Faisalabad and that the allegations made against him in the applications submitted by some residents of the Mohallah were not correct. Respondent No.1 was not competent to pass ‑the impugned order without hearing the petitioner and recording a specific finding to the effect that he had violated any of the conditions of the licence. The petitioner's learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Syed Wasaf Ali Shah v. Secretary, Interiors, Government of Pakistan 1991 PCr.LJ

32. This case pertains to an arms licence. It was held that by virtue of the licence issued, the petitioner had acquired a valid right to hold the licence and that the precondition for exercise of power of cancellation is the grant of an opportunity to the licence of being heard and that any action taken in violation of the requirements of a statutory notice must fail. Needless to add that principles of natural justice are a part of every law unless their application is specifically excluded. This rule was laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The University of Dacca through its Vice‑Chancellor v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90 and is being constantly followed by the Courts in the administration of justice.

5. Therefore, the petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the petitioner's licence stands restored. If any action is sought to be taken by the competent Authority for cancellation of the petitioner's licence, the petitioner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing of any order against him. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1258/L Petition allowed.