P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

WAHIDUDDIN, J.--‑ The petitioner, Taj Hotel (Pak.) Limited, by this writ petition has challenged the validity of the order of the Controller of Hotels and Lodging Houses, Karachi dated the 8th of July 1957 whereby the rates of the petitioner's hotel were revised under section 6 of the Karachi Hotels and Lodging Houses Control Act, 1950. It appears that for a long time there was a controversy between the parties whether the final order dated 12th February 1952 passed by the Administrator, Karachi, contained any direction with regard to the rates applicable to the annexe attached with the main building of the petitioner's hotel. This controversy culminated in a letter dated the 15th of May 1956 by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to explain why they were charging the same rates for the rooms of the annexe as of the main building. On the 10th of October 1956 the petitioner was informed that the Controller has fixed afresh the rates for the annexe. This order was challenged in appeal and the officer authorised set aside the order of the Additional Controller : and directed that the revision of the rates of the Taj Hotel be made afresh. The Additional Controller thereupon proceeded to revise the rates of the Taj Hotel, and on his report the impugned order dated the 8th of July 1957 was passed by the Controller revising the rates of the petitioner's hotel. The matter was taken in appeal and it was urged that the Controller had revised the rates without hearing the petitioner and the said order was liable to be set aside. The appellate authority, however, rejected this plea and observed :‑ "(2) As regards (1), the Additional Controller of Hotels has stated before me that although no formal notice was served, yet when he went for the inspection of the Hotel and to hold the enquiry summarily, the manager and the pro prietor of the hotel were present who conducted him from room to room and they had their say in the matter. The Manager of the hotel has admitted before me that he and the proprietor were present at the time of the inspection by the Additional Controller of Hotels but that they were not specifi cally examined on the issues involved. (3) Under section 12 of the Act, it has been laid down that no order under sections 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall be made by the Controller except after holding an enquiry. Subsection (2) of the same section says that such enquiry shall be made summarily in the prescribed manner. Unfortunately the rules do not prescribe any particular manner of this summary enquiry and therefore it appears to have been left to the dis cretion of the inquiring officer. In this case the proprietor and the manager of the hotel were present at the time the Additional Controller went to inspect the hotel and they had the opportunity to represent whatever they wished. I, therefore, hold that the enquiry prescribed under the Act has been made." The petitioner has now come to this Court and has challenged the validity of the order of the Controller dated the 8th of July 1957 on the sole ground that it was passed without hearing him and is against the principles of natural justice. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The impugned order was passed under section 6 of the Hotels and Lodging Houses Control Act, 1950. Under section 12 of the said enactment, it is laid down that no order under sections 5, 6 and 11 shall be made by the Controller except after holding an inquiry. Subsection (2) of the said provision says that such inquiry shall be made summarily in the prescribed manner. Although the Act was passed in 1950 yet the Provincial Govern ment has not framed any rules to prescribe the manner in which the inquiry contemplated under section 12 of the said enact ment is to be made. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore urged that in the absence of any rules, it shall have to be considered whether the Controller before revising the rates of the petitioner's hotel heard and gave them an adequate opportunity to present and explain their point of view. The sole question for determination therefore, in this case is whether the principles of natural justice were observed by the Controller before revising the rates of the petitioner's hotel. Mr. Raymond, the learned counsel for the respondent, has taken us through the entire record and has invited our attention to paragraph 14 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the Additional Controller. It reads as under :‑ " That with regard to para. 13, I deny that the order of the Controller dated 8‑7‑57 produced as Annexure "K" to this Writ Petition was passed without notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to place their point of view before the Controller. On the contrary, before the making of this order of 8‑7‑57, I personally inspected the Taj Hotel for over 2 hours in the company of Mr. Advani, the proprietor and his manager. I measured myself the area of each room. I told both Mr. Advani and his manager the purpose of this inspection, for what reason I was taking these measurements and that the rates of his Hotel were to be revised. I thus gave every opportunity to Mr. Advani and his manager to explain their point of view which they did and were patiently heard by me. I produce the final report submitted by me to the Controller of Hotels after the said inspection as Annexure "D". The statement in this para. clearly shows that the only oppor tunity which was given to the petitioner was when' the Additional Controller visited the Taj Hotel for the purposes of measuring the rooms. According to this officer he informed Mr. Advani and his manager that the rates of the hotel are to be revised and that he has come to take measurements of the rooms in the said hotel. In this way he gave an opportunity to Mr. Advani and his manager to explain their points of view which they did and he patiently heard them. Now this particular inspection was followed by an inspection report submitted to the Controller of Hotels and it will be of importance to note that in this report dated the 2nd of July 1957, it is not mentioned at all that any opportunity was given to the petitioner of the nature stated in para. 14 of the affidavit. The report of the Additional Controller dated 2nd of July 1957 is reproduced below "Reference noting on pre page I have inspected Taj Hotel in the presence of its manage ment. It consists of two portions, viz., Main Building and the Annexe. The Main Building has got the following accommoda tion and amenities for its guests :‑ Accommodation Amenities. Single rooms 6.

1. Lounge Double rooms 48.

2. Dining Hall

3. Bar

4. Lawn

5. A General lift. The general upkeep and the furnishing of this portion is also upto the standard of any other hotel of its category. In view of its, there appears no reason to review its rates adversely. The observation of the Appellate Authority in regard to the fixation of rates of this hotel to be done `room by room' may be taken into consideration when the question of revision of rates is undertaken in respect of all the hotels. The Annexe to this hotel consisting of a row of two storeyed rooms is situated outside the compound of the Main Building. It has got 8 single and 4 double rooms, but it has got none of the aforesaid amenities provided for the guests in the Main Building. The guests staying in this Annexe have to walk on the footpath of the main road to reach the Main Building in case they wish to avail themselves of the amenities provided there. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the rates for the rooms of the Annexe should be less as compared to the rooms of the Main Building. 'But the management of the hotel are charging the same rates in the Annexe as operative in the Main Building. The existing fair rates of this hotel are as follows :‑ Rooms Rates of Lodging and Boarding Per Day Single room small size ... Rs. 14 Main Building Single room ... Rs. 16 Double room : for one ... Rs. 24 Double room :for two ... Rs. 32 The Controller of Hotels has fixed the following rates for its Annexe in 1951 Single room ... Rs. 12 Double room: for one ... Rs. 19 Double room: for two ... Rs. 24 In 1952 a general increase of Rs. 2 per head was granted by the Controller in the rates of all the Western Style Hotels. Taking into consideration this increase, the rates for the rooms of the Annexe may now, if approved, be raised as follows :‑ Single room ... Rs. 14 Double room :for one ... Rs. 21 Double room : for two ... Rs. 28 As regards the cottages, the management of the hotel in formed me that the cottages are not used for the accommodation of the guests and they are to be demolished after some time. The question of fixing their fair rates, therefore, does not arise. (Sd.) Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Additional Controller of Hotels & Lodging Houses. Controller Karachi, 2‑7‑

57. Please speak. (Sd.) Altaf Gauhar, 2‑7 Discussed. Approved. (Sd.) Altaf Gauhar, 5‑7‑57." The noting on this report further shows that on the 5th of July 1957 the Controller discussed this matter with the Additional Controller and it was thereafter that the order dated the 8th of July 1957 was passed. The facts stated above make it abundantly clear that the Controller at no stage heard or took into consideration the point of view of the petitioner before revising the rates of the hotel. In our opinion any discussion between the Additional Controller, Mr. Advani and the Manager of the hotel cannot be said to be an enquiry by the Controller within the meaning of S. 12 of the said enactment. The Additional Controller only made inspection of the hotel on behalf of the Controller. It was the bounden duty of the Controller to inform the petitioner about the report of the Additional Controller. This was not done. No notice was ever issued to the petitioner by the Controller about the holding of the inquiry which was subsequently held by him: The enquiry held by the Controller before passing the impugned order was ex‑parte and without providing any oppor tunity to the petitioner. In our opinion under these circum stances the order of the Controller dated the 8th of July 1957 violates the fundamental principles of natural justice which are expected to be observed in such matters. A perusal of section 12 of the Karachi Hotels and Lodgin Houses (Control) Act shows that the inquiry contemplated under this section, though summary, is of a quasi‑judicial nature because it empowers the Controller not only to summon witnesses but make the proceedings of the inquiry held by him as judicial proceedings for the purposes of taking action under sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the matter was taken up by the Appellate Authority and all the objections raised by the petitioner were considered in that appeal, and therefore the matter having been heard in the presence of the parties, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the ground that the principles of natural justice were not observed by the Controller. The Appellate Authority in this case only dealt with the question whether an inquiry contemplated under S. 12 was held or not and decided in favour of the respondent. We have already held that this view of the matter is incorrect. . The Controller at no stage held any enquiry in the presence of the parties and there is no doubt that for this reason the impugned order suffers from an illegality. We might have given some weight to the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as the appellate authority heard the petitioner and allowed him to place all the material at the appellate stage, the impugned order should not be set aside. But a perusal of the appellate authority's order shows that he also did not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to place before him relevant material for the decision of the matter on merits. He merely observed and also adopted the argument of the Controller that the amenities provided in the main building are much more than those provided in the Annexe and the rates fixed for that reason are fair. After a careful consideration of the matter we hold that the order of the Controller dated the 8th of July 1957 is against the principles of natural justice and cannot be upheld. We therefore set aside the said order and direct the respon dent to fix the rates of the petitioner's hotel of her giving adequate opportunity and full hearing to them. The respondent will bear the costs of this petition. K.B.A Petition accepted.