1993 PLP 270 (MLD)

Abdul Samad Hashmi for A.‑G. for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 9th July 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is directed against the order of the Commissioner dated 22‑9‑1986 whereby he revoked the stamp‑vending licences granted to the petitioners.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh, vide his order, dated 5‑3‑1986 appointed the petitioners and four others, namely, Abdul Ghani, Muhammad Azim, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Saif‑ur‑Rehman (not parties in the present proceedings) as Stamp Vendors for the area mentioned against each of them in the said order. Hafiz Muhammad Ijaz, respondent No.2 herein, who, too, was an applicant for appointment as Stamp Vendor, preferred an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner in which he impleaded only two of the appointees, namely. Muhammad Azim and Saif‑ur‑Rehman as respondents. Respondent Hafiz Muhammad Ijaz made a grievance before the Commissioner that `he was not interviewed and consequently not given an opportunity to prove his bona fides for the post of Stamp Vendor'. The Commissioner was.not satisfied with the manner in which appointments were made. He observed that `the appointment of a Stamp Vendor carries with it certain patronage. The District Collector in making such appointments must ensure that some cogent reasons are given and an established criteria adopted. The note of A.D.C.(G) is sketchy and highly subjective'. With this observation, the Commissioner proceeded to accept the appeal and in exercise of his powers under Rule 31 of the Punjab Stamp Rules, 1934, revoked the licences, granted to the petitioners and two others, namely Abdul Ghani and A Muhammad Sharif. As regards the remaining two appointees, who were the only respondents in the appeal, it was observed by the Commissioner that `the other two appointees apparently did not come forward to fulfil the necessary formalities, hence no order is made in their respect'. The District Collector was accordingly directed to invite fresh applications and make appointments in' systematic and well‑organised manner. This was vide order dated 22‑9‑1986 impugned in the present petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also, the learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner. No one has turned up for respondent No.2 despite notice.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not impleaded as respondents in the appeal filed by Hafiz Muhammad Ijaz, respondent. They were neither summoned nor heard by the Commissioner. Nevertheless, their licences were revoked by the impugned order which was wholly illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner is not in a position to controvert the contention raised' on behalf of the petitioners. It may pertinently be observed that even if it b., accepted, for the sake of argument, that the order of Deputy Commissioner, as observed/held by the Commissioner, suffered from some legal infirmity, no adverse order could be passed against the present petitioners as they were admittedly not parties in the appeal decided by the Commissioner. Needless to observe that the licences granted to the petitioners by the competent Authority could only be revoked/cancelled after affording them reasonable opportunity of being heard. No such opportunity was granted to them. The impugned order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside on this short ground.

5. In view of what has been said above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in so far as‑ it affected the petitioners' interest is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs. AA./A‑266/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.