2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)
Malik JAMAL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, MULTAN through Secretary and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Malik JAMAL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, MULTAN through Secretary and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
This judgment primarily cites: Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 1 (YLRN) (Malik JAMAL AZIZ — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, MULTAN through Secretary and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mehmood Ali for Petitioner.
- 3. Contention of petitioner is that show-cause notice was not received by him. In support of his contention, petitioner has annexed a certificate issued by Postmaster Multan GPO, according to which RL No.347 dated 23.01.2009 could not be delivered to its addressee due to vague and incomplete address. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner should have been provided an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He refers to Rule 5(3) of Punjab Drug Rules, 2007. Show-cause notice issued to the petitioner apparently was not received by him. Therefore, impugned order has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, as such not sustainable. For the reasons recorded above, petition in hand is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside. However, respondents may issue a fresh show-cause notice to petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
- Rana Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Advocate General for the State.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 27, 23 & 18
Punjab Drugs Rules (2007), R. 5 (3)
Import, manufacture and sale of drugs
Procedure of Quality Control Board
Show-cause notice, requirement of
Respondent-Drug Inspector found petitioner running his medical store in violation of provisions of Punjab Drugs Act, 1976, for which Quality Control Board first issued show-cause notice to him and then for no reply to said notice passed impugned order deciding to prosecute petitioner by lodging FIR
Petitioner contended that he had not received any show-cause notice as reflected from certificate issued by Postmaster, which provided that notice could not be delivered to him due to vague and incomplete address
Impugned order had been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, and as such same was not sustainable
High Court, setting aside impugned order, directed department to issue fresh show-cause notice to petitioner
Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. [Para. 3 of the judgment] Rana Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Advocate General for the State. ORDER CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.
Through this petition, order No.452/Secy/DQCB dated 27.04.2009 passed by respondent No.1 has been challenged, whereby District Quality Control Board, Multan decided to lodge FIR against petitioner and to prosecute him in Drug Court.
2. Petitioner is proprietor of a medical store. Drug Inspector Shah Rukn-e-Alam Town, Multan inspected petitioner's medical store on 18.10.2008 and opined that medical store was being run in violation of provisions of Drugs Act, 1976. Drug Inspector referred the matter to District Quality Control Board, Multan, wherefrom a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner but he did not reply to that notice. Then respondent No.1/District Quality Control Board, Multan passed the impugned order. SL/J-10/L Petition allowed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, J.
Through this petition, order No.452/Secy/DQCB dated 27.04.2009 passed by respondent No.1 has been challenged, whereby District Quality Control Board, Multan decided to lodge FIR against petitioner and to prosecute him in Drug Court.
2. Petitioner is proprietor of a medical store. Drug Inspector Shah Rukn-e-Alam Town, Multan inspected petitioner's medical store on 18.10.2008 and opined that medical store was being run in violation of provisions of Drugs Act, 1976. Drug Inspector referred the matter to District Quality Control Board, Multan, wherefrom a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner but he did not reply to that notice. Then respondent No.1/District Quality Control Board, Multan passed the impugned order.
3. Contention of petitioner is that show-cause notice was not received by him. In support of his contention, petitioner has annexed a certificate issued by Postmaster Multan GPO, according to which RL No.347 dated 23.01.2009 could not be delivered to its addressee due to vague and incomplete address. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that petitioner should have been provided an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order. He refers to Rule 5(3) of Punjab Drug Rules, 2007. Show-cause notice issued to the petitioner apparently was not received by him. Therefore, impugned order has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to petitioner, as such not sustainable. For the reasons recorded above, petition in hand is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside. However, respondents may issue a fresh show-cause notice to petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. SL/J-10/L Petition allowed.