P L D 1982 Lahore 575 (PLP)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SECRETARY (GENERAL), FOOD DEPARTMENT
| Citation | P L D 1982 Lahore 575 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SECRETARY (GENERAL), FOOD DEPARTMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1982 Lahore 575 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1982 Lahore 575 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1982 Lahore 575 (PLP) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SECRETARY (GENERAL), FOOD DEPARTMENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nawab Saeed Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Rashid Aziz Addl. A: G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.
- Farooq Hasan Naqvi for Sh, Hamid Mukhtar for Respondent No. 6.
- Date of hearing : 25th April, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑ Art. 199 read with West Pakistan Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967, S. 6‑Bifurcation of Ration Depot by District Food Controller‑Revision petition against such order dismissed by Deputy Secretary of Food Department in purported exercise of his power as revisional authority‑Held, revision petition filed by petitioner not disposed. of by competent authority and same deemed to be pending for disposal by Secretary to Government of Punjab Food Department in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to petitioner. Khawaj Din v. Rationing Controller, Food, Faisalabad and 2 others P L D 1980 Lah. 15 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The dispute in this case relates to bifurcation of the depot of the petitioner by order dated 21‑5‑1978 of the District Food Controller, Sargodha.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order of bifurcation was passed without any show‑cause notice to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue; was dismissed as incompetent and the Deputy Secretary (General) to the Food Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, acting as revisional authority dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the order of District Magistrate, Sargodha was justified on merits and that the defect in not hearing the petitioner at the original stage 'stood cured in appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Secretary (General) was not competent to pass the impugned order in the purported exercise of his power as revisional authority and the Secretary to the Food Department, Government of Punjab, alone was competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Article 6 of the West Pakistan Foodstuff Distribution Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the order). Reliance is placed on Khawaj Din v. Rationing Controller, Food, Faisalabad and 2 others P L D 1980 Lah. 15, where it was held that the use of word "Government" in the context of Article 6(3) of the Order would mean `Government acting through the Secretary of the Depart' and the delegation or assigning of power of hearing and adjudication on revision petition by the Secretary to the Deputy Secretary (General) was without lawful authority.
3. I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petition filed by the disposed of by the competent authority. The result is that the same is deemed to be ‑pending and shall be disposed of by the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore in accordance with law and after providing an opportunity of being beard to the petitioner. The writ petition is accepted to this extent with no order as to costs. S' Q' Petition accepted.