2003 PLP 360 (YLR)

Commissioner of Income‑tax Fazal‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410 ref. Malik Sarfraz Hussain for Petitioner. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, A.‑G. for Respondents. The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was granted a stamp vending licence by the District Collector, Sheikhupura, vide order, dated 9‑8‑1982 for Manawala, District Sheikhupura. Muhammad Ali son of Mahtab Ali moved an application against the petitioner before the. Deputy Commissioner/District Collector on the ground that the petitioner sold non judicial stamp paper worth Rs.20 to one Mirza Muhammad Amin Baig instead of actual person namely Muhammad Ali. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector sent the application to Mr. Muhammad Kazim Awan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sheikhupura for conducting a thorough inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, dated 6‑8‑1997 with the recommendation for cancellation of stamp vending licence of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector cancelled the licence of the petitioner vide order, dated 12‑9‑1998.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in which the petitioner was acquitted by the competent Court. He further submits that the petitioner did not violate any terms and conditions of the aforesaid licence under the law prescribed under Rules 28 and 29 of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the impugned order is passed by the competent authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner.

3. The learned Additional Advocate -General submits that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the licence, therefore, the competent authority was justified to cancel the licence of the petitioner. He further submits that there was no violation of principle of natural justice as Inquiry Officer submitted his report after providing proper hearing to the petitioner.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

5. The first contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal case, has no force. It is settled principle of law that departmental action and criminal proceedings are independent of each other and can go on side by side and may even end in varying results, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "Talib Hussain v. Anar Gul Khan and 4 others" (1993 SCMR 2177), "The D, ‑G. Police etc. v. Anis‑ur- Rehman Khan" (PLD 1985 SC 134). The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed on the basis of inquiry report without issuance of any notice to the petitioner, therefore, the same is hit by the principle of natural justice. It is settled principle of law that principle of natural justice must be read in each and every statute until and unless it is prohibited by wording of statute itself as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Commissioner of Income‑tax v. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman" (PLD 1964 SC 410). The Rule 29 of the Punjab Stamp' Rules, 1934 does not allow the competent authority to cancel the licence without issuing notice to the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on the well‑known principle of natural justice as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments: ‑‑ "Zakir Ahmad v. University of Dhakka" (PLD 1965 SC 90), "Pakistan etc. v. Public‑at‑large, etc (PLD 1987 SC 304), "Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. Inquiry Officer, etc." (1983 SCMR 1208). In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order, dated 12‑9‑1998 is set aside. Since the order of the competent authority is set aside on technical ground, the competent authority is well within his right to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Syed Mir Muhammad v. N.‑W.F.P. Government through Chief Secretary" (PLD 1981 SC 176). With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Order accordingly. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1553/L