SCMR 1968

1968 PLP 1296 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑Petitioner Versus JIWAN KHAN‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 48 of 1968, decided on 26th June 1968.
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1968 PLP 1296 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑Petitioner Versus JIWAN KHAN‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 PLP 1296 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 PLP 1296 (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: 1968 PLP 1296 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RIAZ‑Petitioner Versus JIWAN KHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Niaz Muhammad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S. Wajid Hussan, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing : 26th June 1968.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1324 of 1967). Licence --J's licence for a Fair Price shop cancelled and M granted licence as a stop‑gap measure pending inquiry against Subsequently licence of J restored and that of M cancelled Cancellation of M's licence in circumstance, held, did not call in interference by Court. JUDGMENT FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑On the report of the Additional District Magistrate, the District Food Controller, Jhelum, cancelled .respondent Jiwan Khan's licence for a fair price shop at Piran Gheb, Jhelum, and granted the said licence to the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz. After a further enquiry the licence of Jiwan Khan was restored and consequently the licence granted to Muhammad Riaz was cancelled. Muhammad Riaz then moved a writ in the High Court. The learned Judges, on the report of the Department that licence had been granted to Muhammad Riaz as a stop‑gap arrangement, dismissed the writ petition in limine. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that in the absence of breach of any' of the conditions of the licence the District Food Controller was not justified in cancelling petitioner's licence. From the facts of this case it is clear that licence for the said fair price shop had been granted to the petitioner on a provisional basis, that is, during the pendency of enquiry against the former licence holder. Hence the High Court was justified in accepting the report of the Department, that the petitioner was allotted the said shop as a stop‑gap arrangement. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.

Judgment & Decree

FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑On the report of the Additional District Magistrate, the District Food Controller, Jhelum, cancelled .respondent Jiwan Khan's licence for a fair price shop at Piran Gheb, Jhelum, and granted the said licence to the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz. After a further enquiry the licence of Jiwan Khan was restored and consequently the licence granted to Muhammad Riaz was cancelled. Muhammad Riaz then moved a writ in the High Court. The learned Judges, on the report of the Department that licence had been granted to Muhammad Riaz as a stop‑gap arrangement, dismissed the writ petition in limine. He now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that in the absence of breach of any' of the conditions of the licence the District Food Controller was not justified in cancelling petitioner's licence. From the facts of this case it is clear that licence for the said fair price shop had been granted to the petitioner on a provisional basis, that is, during the pendency of enquiry against the former licence holder. Hence the High Court was justified in accepting the report of the Department, that the petitioner was allotted the said shop as a stop‑gap arrangement. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.