1982 PLP 942 (SCMR)
WARYAM AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 942 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WARYAM AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 942 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 942 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 942 (SCMR) (WARYAM AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND 5 OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. M. Zubair, Additional Advocate-General for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 30th March, 1982.
- Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. M. Zubair, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 8-3-1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 612 of 1982). -- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Ration Depot-Cancellation-Many ration-card holders belonging to same community to which petitioner belonged unanimously supporting allegations made against him Inquiry made in presence of petitioner and objections raised by peti tioner considered by Inquiry Officer-Petitioner appearing before Inquiry Officer with counsel and given opportunity to give further evidence if desired in support of his contentions but not furnishing any other evidence and submitting only his statement-Inquiry proceedings, held, neither mala fide nor held in denial of opportunity of hearing.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing in liming his writ petition filed to challenge the cancellation of the authorisation of a ration depot from his name. The cancellation bad been ordered by the Food Allotment Board, Sheikhupura, on 28‑2‑1982, in the result of an enquiry held in regard to allegations of irregularities, gross misconduct and black‑marketing on the part of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the authorisation had been first cancelled on 22‑4‑1981 but the order had later been withdrawn and a fresh enquiry had been made before the impugned cancellation order was passed. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Board on grounds of mala fide and denial of opportunity to him to cross‑examine the witnesses but both were repelled by the learned Judge who noted that the second objection had not been taken in the writ petition but had been raised for the first time during the hearing of the arguments and as such the same could not be entertained.
2. After hearing learned counsel on 2a‑3‑1982, we summoned the record for today. An official of the Department has brought the record and, we have gone through the same with the help of counsel on both sides. The order of the Board, which is fairly detailed, shows that before the Enquiry officer, seven ration‑card holders belonging to the Christian Community to which the petitioner also belongs, had made statements unanimously supporting the allegations against him. 134 other ration‑card holders, also all Christians of the same Ward, had made a joint statement supporting the allegations, though 62 ration‑card holders had stated that they had no complaints against him. The enquiry had been made in the presence of the petitioner and the objections raised by him at that time had also been considered by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had appeared with counsel during the hearing before the Board on 28‑2‑1982 and was given opportunity to give further evidence, if he desired, in support of his, contentions but he did not furnish any other evidence and only submitted a statement. In these circumstances, we find no substance in the assertion that the enquiry proceedings were mala fide or had been held in denial of opportunity or hearing. The dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court was, therefore, fully merited. Leave to appeal is refused. Leave refused.