1989 PLP 1570 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13 October, 1981. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner held a licence granted by the respondents as a passenger broker on yearly basis. The licence was to expire on 31 December, 1977 but then there were some allegations against the petitioner of misconduct by them in connection with their dealings under the licence. Hence they were served with a show‑cause notice to which they had replied. Eventually on 27 November, 1977 their licence was suspended. However on the representation of the petitioner it was restored on 7 December, 1977 but thereafter when the petitioner applied for its renewal they were informed on 20 September, 1978 that respondent No. 2 had refused to renew it. Few days before the passing of this order the petitioner had moved writ petition with a prayer that respondent Not should be directed to renew their licence but this writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn in order to seek the remedy of appeal before the Federal Government. The petitioner then filed an appeal which was dismissed and letter to that effect was communicated to the petitioner on 2 October, 1979. The petitioner challenged this order by way of second writ petition (Writ Petition No. 6328 of 1979) which was dismissed. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the impugned orders passed by the respondents were based mainly on the ground that the material on the basis of which the petitioner has been punished had at no stage been brought to the notice of the petitioner and that they had been condemned unheard. In other words the case of the petitioner is that they were never given a hearing by the authorities concerned, but this has been belied by the record as discussed m paras. 3 and 4 of the impugned order passed in writ petition by learned Single Judge at pages 6 and 7 of the paper book which indicates that the material was produced by respondent No.l for the perusal of the petitioner and that the petitioner was also heard. The record had further indicated that the petitioner was duly confronted with the material. The petitioner might have offered an explanation but whether the explanation was satisfactory or not was to be determined by respondent No.2 under rule 66 of the Emigration Rules, 1979 as he was the competent authority to take action under the aforesaid rule in a case of this nature. We have heard learned counsel but no ground has been made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./B‑92/S Petition dismissed