1999 PLP 2516 (MLD)
Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2516 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2516 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2516 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2516 (MLD) (Malik GULZAR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Petitioner.
- Rana Naeem Sarwar, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
S. 18
Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984, R. 109
Constitutional petition
Licence of cinema was suspended and building sealed on the allegation of exhibiting obscene pictures
Authority did not provide opportunity of hearing to cinema management
Failure on part of Authority to comply with mandatory requirement of R. 109, Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984 had vitiated the order and same was declared to be without lawful authority-- Authority was, however, left open to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Petitioner. Rana Naeem Sarwar, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent Brief facts are; the petitioner had taken Prince Cinema, Hafizabad, on lease and is running the same. On 22-10-1997 a case under section 18 of Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979 was registered against the petitioner on the allegation that he was exhibiting obscene picture. Thereafter, on 3-11-1997 the District Magistrate passed the impugned order, in exercise of powers under Rule 109 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984, suspending the licence of the Cinema and sealing the building thereof. Hence, this writ petition.
2. The grievance voiced in this writ petition is that despite the fact that law requires prior hearing before passing of an order under Rule 109 (ibid) the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of hearing and he has been condemned unheard. Rule 109(1) reads as under: "
109. Suspension for Cancellation of licence, 1) The District Magistrate may, at any time, for reasons to be recorded in writing, revoke or suspend a licence granted by licensing authority for any breach of these rules or the conditions of the licence: Provided that a hearing is afforded to the Cinema management before passing such order: Provided further that the licensee may within thirty days of the communication of such decision to him, appeal against it to the Commissioner of the Division whose decision shall be final."
3. Learned Law Officer could not controvert the assertion of the petitioner about lack of opportunity of hearing to him prior to the passing of the impugned order. The failure on the part of the District Magistrate to comply with the mandatory requirement of Rule, 109 of the Punjab Cinematograph Rules, 1984 has vitiated the order, impugned herein, and it is accordingly declared to be without lawful authority. It will be open to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. Allowed in the above terms. No costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./C-90/L Writ petition allowed.