1983 PLP 26 (CLC)
Syed ISRAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 26 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shamim Hussain Kadri, C. J. and Muhammad Aslam Mian, J |
| Parties | Syed ISRAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 26 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 26 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shamim Hussain Kadri, C. J. and Muhammad Aslam Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 26 (CLC) (Syed ISRAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, LAHORE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Appellant.
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad, A.‑G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 27th September, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Maxim‑ ‑‑ Audi alteram pratem‑‑Held, to be read in a statute even if not provide such statute. (b) Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act (XXIX of 1977)‑
S. 3
"Fair price"‑Pre‑requisites of‑Reasonable margin of profit and providing opportunity of hearing to persons affected before determining same ‑ Price fixed for vending aerated water without hearing contractor set aside in circumstances of case-- District Magistrate directed to fix fair price of such water after hearing contractors appellants.‑[Words and phrases).
Judgment & Decree
SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI, C. J.‑This Intra‑Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Chambers dated 14‑9‑1982 whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants who are contractors for selling aerated waters in cinema houses. The Deputy Commissioner has fixed prices of various kinds of soft drinks under section 3 of Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, which is operative in the District. ‑
2. The grievance of the appellants is that they have to pay 35 paisa to the servicemen on each bottle for vending the same within the precincts of cinema houses. In a crate there are 24 bottles and by calculation of the service charges, the amount comes to Rs. 8.40 while according to the learned Single Judge the margin of profit is Rs. 8.00 per crate. This question was specifically raised before the learned Single Judge who has not adverted to this aspect of the case. In this situation the contractors are at a loss and it cannot be argued with success that the price fixed under section 3 of Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, is fair. The other plea of fixation of fair price is to take into consideration cost price and the sale price of a commodity leaving some margin of profit to the contractors.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as soon as the writ petition was filed in this Court comments were called for. The authorities conducted raids in different cinema houses and challaned a large number of persons. It was, therefore, futile to make representation in such circumstances. Be that as it may, we have heard the learned Advocate‑General who has gone through the papers as well as section 3 of Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977. There can be no escape from interpreting the words "fair price" with two pre‑requisites that there should be a reasonable margin of profit and to determine the same a hearing has to be provided to the persons affected. It is well‑settled law that even if hearing is not provided in the statute maxim audi alteram partem has to be read into such statute. 'We are therefore, inclined to accept this Intra‑Court appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to hear the appellants before fixing the fair price for vending aerated waters within the premises of cinema houses and restaurants. In special circumstances of this case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. This, however, would not mean that the contractors will be at liberty to sell the beverage at any price they like and fleece the consumer at random. During the interregnum if any vendor charges the abnormal price of a soft drink he shall of course be liable for prosecution for violation of such an Order. M. A. K.