2008 PLP 167 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN. J

Instant petition assailed order, dated 6-7-2007 passed by Nazim Administration, Chunian, District Kasur, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence whereby licence of the petitioner to ply twenty-six seaters A.C. Coaches from Chunian to Lahore, was cancelled.

2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioner is a transporter and plies his coaches from Chunian to Lahore and was allocated Track/Bay No.6 in Old Tonga Stand, Chunian, vide order, dated 1-6-2007. Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.60,000 with the respondents as fee for the track/bay allocated to him. During his this business, Nazim T'ehsil Administration, Chunian on 6-7-2007 cancelled his licence, with the order to the following effect:-- "The orders issued vide No.TMA-CHN-2007/217-220, dated 1-6-2007 regarding plying of twenty-six seaters A.C. Coaches by Messrs Hajvery Travels at Old Tonga Stand of General Bus Stand Chunian City are hereby recalled with immediate effect in the public interest." Petitioner being aggrieved of cancellation of his licence, filed instant petition for adjudgment of order, dated 6-7-2007 passed by respondent No.1. Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner earlier to cancellation of his licence. The order impugned also does not depict that petitioner was called upon to explain his position or he was heard at the time of taking of complained action. The order above reproduced, shows that respondent No.1 has given no reasons for cancellation of licence validly issued in the name of the petitioner. This order, on the face of it, is not only sketchy but also lacks reasoning in itself. Stance of learned counsel for the respondents that licence of the petitioner was cancelled on complaints of non-providing of facilities to the public at large at the bay allocated to him, has not impressed me for the simple reason that no such reason has been mentioned by respondent No. 1 in the order under attack.

4. Under law, a vested right had accrued in favour of the petitioner when the competent authority had granted him licence to ply his twenty-six seaters A.C. Coaches in the name of Messrs Hajvery Travels from Old Tonga Stand Chunian City and thereafter he was allocated a track/bay for this purpose but he was not provided an opportunity of hearing earlier to punitive action taken through the impugned order. The complained action is not only violative of mandatory provisions of law but is also contrary to the principles of natural justice which have to be read in each statute in terms of judgment by the apex Court in the case of Mst. Zahida. Sattar and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 408 and the cases of Messrs Murree Brewery Company Limited v. Director-General, Excise and 'Taxation and 3 others 1991 MLD 267 and Gul Muhammad and 8 others v.. Buxal and 2 others 1991 CLC 229.

5. Had the petitioner not provided facilities for the utility of public -at-large, contrary to the terms of his licence, he could have been called upon to explain his position and after providing him an opportunity of hearing, respondent No.1 could take punitive action as per law but this course was not adopted, hence the impugned order being bad at law, is not sustainable.

6. For the reasons noted above, instant petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 6-7-2007 passed by respondent No.1 is declared to be void and non-existent in the eye of. law. Respondent No.1, however, may proceed against the petitioner after fulfilling the prerequisites of law, as noted above, afresh. Disposed of with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-576/L Petition accepted.