P L D 2005 Lahore 399 (PLP)
Mst. IRSHAIJ BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2005 Lahore 399 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Actg. C J |
| Parties | Mst. IRSHAIJ BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2005 Lahore 399 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2005 Lahore 399 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Actg. C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2005 Lahore 399 (PLP) (Mst. IRSHAIJ BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Liaqat Ali Butt for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Principles of natural justice‑‑ Violation of‑‑‑Complaint filed by petitioner before Wafaqi Mohtasab Ala was accepted and review petition filed by respondent agency before Wafaqi Mohtasab Ala was also dismissed‑‑‑Representation filed by respondent before Higher Authority under provisions of President Order No.1 of 1983 having been accepted by Authority through impugned order, petitioner had filed present Constitutional petition‑‑‑Contention of petitioner, was that impugned order was without lawful authority as the same passed by the Authority without application of mind and without issuance of any notice to petitioner‑‑‑Impugned order had itself revealed that Authority had passed said order without providing hearing to the petitioner‑‑‑Principles of natural justice must be read in each and every statute unless and until it was prohibited by wording of the statute itself‑‑‑Impugned order having been passed by Authority without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, same was hit by principles of natural justice. Commissioner of Income‑Tax v. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1964 SC 410; Zakir Ahmad v. University of Dhacca PLD 1965 SC 90; Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. v. Inquiry Officer 1983 SCMR 1208; Pakistan and others v'. Public at Large and others PLD 1987 SC 304; Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCMR 2189; Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCMR 2744; Mst. Nusrat Imtiaz v. Government of Pakistan NLR 2000 Civil 54; Messrs. Eastern Leather Co., v. Raja Qamar Sultan, S.O. PLD 2004 Lah..83 and Muzaffar Khan's case PLD 1959 SC 9 ref. Yawar Ali, D.A.‑G. for Pakistan (on Court's call).
Judgment & Decree
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel of the parties, and perused the record.
5. The impugned order itself reveals that the respondents passed the same without providing proper hearing 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 B statute unless and until it is prohibited by wording of statute itself, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income‑Tax v. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman PLD 1964 SC
410. The impugned order was passed by respondents without providing proper hearing to the petitioner, therefore, same is hit by principle of natural justice as per principle laid down in the following judgments:‑ Zakir Ahmad v. University of Dacca (PLD 1965 SC 90). Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd v. Inquiry Officer (1983 SCMR 1208). Pakistan and others v. Public at large, etc. (PLD 1987 SC 304). Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Prizada. (1999 SCMR 2189). Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada. (1999 SCMR 2744). Mst. Nusrat Imtiaz v. Government of Pakistan (NLR 2000 Civil 54). M/s. Eastern Leather Co., v. Raja Qamar Sultan, S.O. (PLD 2004 Lahore 83). I have taken aforesaid view in the various Constitutional petitions, therefore, I am not in a position to deviate from my own view on the well known principle of consistency, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muzaffar Khan's case (PLD 1959 SC 9).
6. In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same is not in consonance with law laid down by the Superior Courts, which is hit by the principle of natural justice and the same is set aside. The impugned order is set aside on technical ground, therefore, the petitioner is directed to appear before Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan Law, Justice' and Human Rights Division, Islamabad in his office at 11‑00 a.m. on 9‑5‑2005, who is directed to hear the petitioner, representatives of the respondents and any other person, who would be aggrieved by, his recommendations and thereafter send the representation of the agency/respondents long with his recommendations to be competent authority concerned for necessary action and compliance.
7. The learned counsel of the petitioner is directed to hand over copy of this writ petition along with all the annexures to Mr. Yawar Ali, Deputy Attorney‑General for Pakistan, who is directed to send the same to aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance. Office is also directed to provide on copy of this order to the aforesaid learned law officer for onward transmission to the aforesaid Section Officer for necessary action and compliance. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges. H.B.T.1‑89/L Order accordingly.