Due Process of Law

In holding that a person is a defaulter under the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 there must be a finding made after assessment and adjudicatory proceedings that a demand for sales tax due and payable remains outstanding against that person and is yet to be paid

Petitioner could not be considered to be in default of tax or liabilities in terms of R. 2(d) of Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 merely because authorities had formed an opinion that he was liable for sales tax fraud for illegally seeking income tax adjustment

On the basis of such opinion, a penalty could not be inflicted on petitioner in the form of curtailing his civil rights and liberties by placing his name on ECL or PCL or PNIL pending determination of the fate of any criminal charge brought against him or adjudicatory proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990

High Court declared that placement of petitioner's name on ECL, PCL and/or PNIL was tantamount to colorable exercise of authority in breach of provisions of Passports Act, 1974, Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 and Arts. 4, 9, 10A, 15 & 25 of the Constitution and such actions were of no legal effect

High Court directed Federal Government to ensure that name of petitioner was removed from ECL, PCL and PNIL and no fetters were to be placed on the rights of petitioner to travel on the ground that he was liable for tax fraud, unless it was determined through the adjudicatory process provided under provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 that he was a defaulter

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

For the purposes of such adjudication an appropriate notice is to be issued to the citizen in question in terms of S. 8 of Passports Act, 1974 read together with Art. 10-A of the Constitution

It is after the adjudicatory process that penal action can be taken in terms of impounding, cancelling, confiscating or inactivation of a passport of a citizen through a reasoned order, after which name of such citizen can be placed in PCL depending on whether such order places the citizen in category 'A' or category 'B' listed under Rr. 22(2)(a) and (b) of Passports Rules, 2021 respectively.

Civil servant could not be blamed or reproached for committing any illegality or securing job through unfair means, fraud, or misrepresentation

Civil servant was at Serial Number 02 on merit list and was appointed on 08-08-2023, but his appointment order was withdrawn/cancelled on 27-09-2023 without any show cause notice or any opportunity to be heard

Such action was in sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution and lacked due process of law

Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by Service Tribunal

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Plea raised by appellant was that declaration of magazine was cancelled on recommendations of Muttehida Ulema Board which had no authority in such regard

Validity

On receipt of material record/information the authorities after application of judicious mind issued show cause notice to appellant to appear and explain his position on the allegation regarding preaching of Qadianiat through magazine in question

Appellant appeared before authorities, filed reply and was also heard by authorities before passing order in question as envisaged in Art.10-A of the Constitution as well as mandated by S. 19 of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002

Recommendations made by Muttehida Ulema Board as well as notification issued by Home Department were not questioned before any competent forum

Recommendations were in active knowledge of appellant, which had attained finality

Appellant through publishing objectionable material in magazine in question committed violation of law and authorities had rightly cancelled declaration of the magazine in question

High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction declined to interfere in order passed by authorities as it was well-reasoned

Appellant failed to point out any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the order

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Constitutional right recognized by Art. 10A of the Constitution is a fundamental right inhering in a person to fair trial and due process for the determination of his civil rights.

Constitutional right recognized by Art. 10A of the Constitution is a fundamental right inhering in a person to fair trial and due process for the determination of his civil rights.

Petitioners contended that Clause 13.3 of the Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) of Post-Graduate Residency (PGR) of Level-III Programs (Policy) provides the right of appeal before respondent/Secretary against the decision of the departmental committee, but the petitioners had been directly terminated by the respondent himself on the allegations of indiscipline, misconduct, involvement in agitation and creating law and order situation without any inquiry by the departmental committee

Validity

Petitioners were directly terminated by the respondent, who also happened to be the appellate authority under Clause 13.3, without initiating or concluding any inquiry through the departmental committee

Such approach not only undermined the petitioner's right of appeal as provided under the Policy, but also constituted a blatant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution

Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) being Regulator was the competent authority with the powers to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was disposed of with a direction to file reply/defence/explanation of the impugned letters before PMDC, which would decide the matter strictly in accordance with law through a speaking order.

Issuance of notices under Ss. 137 and 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are also required as taxpayer may have filed an estimate for purposes of S. 147(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 which may then have been rejected by tax department in exercise of authority under second proviso of S. 147(6) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 or proviso to S. 147(6B) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 as applicable, in which case due date for payment of advance tax would have already passed

Tax department initially invites taxpayer to discharge liability to pay advance tax on a voluntary basis under S. 137 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 failing which it may notify the taxpayer of its intention to use its coercive powers under S. 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to recover advance tax

This is the scheme for collection and recovery of advance tax, which has been incorporated by virtue of S. 147(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Any recovery affected without issuing such notices would be in breach of requirements of S. 147(7) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 read with Ss. 137 and 138 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and fall foul of taxpayer's right to due process guaranteed by Art. 10A of the Constitution and would be illegal.

Accused was bank manager who was arrested in present case for sales tax fraud to the amount of approximately Rs.3.2 billion

Role attributed to accused was of aiding and abetting taxpayer company by opening its accounts in his branch

Validity

Actus reus for an offence under S. 33 is failure of a taxpayer to discharge its tax liability found to be due

There exists no actus reus till after the tax due has been determined through assessment process prescribed under Sales Tax Act, 1990

Question of mens rea can therefore not arise till after the guilty act is found to have transpired

Offenses under S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 are not thought crimes

Where there is no failure to discharge tax liability as duly determined under Sales Tax Act, 1990 no criminal liability can be imagined or founded

Determination of civil liabilities, as required under Art. 10A of the Constitution must be the product of due process

Such process takes time and bestows on citizen the right of appeal which does not entitle the state to ride roughshod over the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, including their right to liberty and dignity

Offences mentioned in FIR were compoundable in terms of S. 37A(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Accused was not named in FIR, which alleged that taxpayer was liable for tax fraud for seeking tax credits and/or tax benefits on the basis of fake sales tax invoices

No assessment of tax due by taxpayer was undertaken under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

It was prior to determination of such tax liability that pre-trial steps of arrest and detention had been taken by tax department in breach of law

High Court found accused entitled to release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond for a sum of Rs.100/- (One hundred)

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea of the respondent/employee was that after culmination of inquiry he was not issued final show cause notice before passing the penalty order and the said order had been passed by an incompetent authority during the pendency of matter before the NIRC in violation of an injunctive order

Validity

Respondent was served with the charge sheet, afforded the opportunity to present his defense before the inquiry officer and the opportunity to participate in proceedings before the inquiry officer during which proceedings testimonies were recorded and respondent was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, thus, complete opportunity was provided to respondent to defend himself

Neither the Single Bench nor the Full Bench of NIRC had recorded any reasons supporting the finding that principle of natural justice was breached during the course of proceedings

Disciplinary proceedings undertaken by a private employer against an employee could not be confused with trial in a criminal matter and the strict procedural requirements to be followed in a trial or adjudication undertaken by court of law could not be read into requirement of fairness that the law imposed on employers while undertaking disciplinary proceedings against employees

Requirement of issuing a show cause notice after inquiry proceedings undertaken by private employer was a requirement imposed by the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, framed under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which could not be read into the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or the Industrial Relations Act, 2012

There is no requirement in law that where it is proved that an employee is guilty of misconduct, such employee is to be issued an additional show-cause notice to have such findings confirmed by higher authority of the employer competent to issue a dismissal order, where an inquiry has been fairly conducted and proceedings in the inquiry are detailed enough to enable the employer to reach a conclusion

Neither Art. 10-A of the Constitution nor principles of natural justice impose an obligation on a private employer to issue such show-cause notice and grant personal hearing before issuing a dismissal order

Finding of the NIRC that the dismissal order was not duly authorized by the General Manager was neither supported by the evidence produced before NIRC nor was legally sustainable, as the evidence produced before NIRC established that the General Manager of the petitioner company authorized the Manager (HR) to issue the dismissal order

Dismissal order had been issued prior to the issuance of any injunctive order of NIRC on the basis of an inquiry report that had found that respondent was guilty of misconduct, thus, it could not be held that the dismissal order was liable to be set aside for having been passed while an injunctive order passed by the NIRC was in field

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Such right has been itched within fundamental law by virtue of inclusion of Art. 10A of the Constitution, which guarantees right of every person to a fair trial prior to determination of his civil rights and obligations to imposition of any penalty.

Requirement of natural justice was that in any inquiry proceedings against a civil servant or an employee of public sector organization, when there was serious allegations of corruption and misconduct, not only the prosecution was to bring home all the charges but accused officer was to be given a fair opportunity to defend himself

Petitioner should specifically knew what were the allegations against him

Court or Tribunal seized of the matter, where the employee had lodged his grievance against major penalty empowered by employer, was required to satisfy itself that allegations against the employee were not only established through confident inspiring evidence but employee was given fair opportunity to defend himself

Mere guesswork, surmise and conjuncture of employee regarding alleged misconduct of an employee was not to be upheld in absence of cogent evidence

Statement of allegations issued to petitioner was defective, as it did not specifically mention and refer to particular documents, according to which petitioner misappropriated amount in question

Inquiry proceeding was not conducted in fair manner

High Court set aside order of dismissal of petitioner from service as the same was based on alien considerations and he was reinstated in service

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Articles 4 & 10-A of the Constitution, provided a citizen with a right to be dealt with according to due process of law and confered the right of fair trial and due process on a person in the matter of determination of his civil rights and obligations

Said Articles and O. XLI, R. 16 of C.P.C., laid emphasis on the aspect of adequate opportunity of hearing to a party in the matter of determination of his/her civil rights and obligations.

Petitioners were owners of cars which were seized by Civil Aviation Authority in the wake of dispute arising with respondent company who had provided car rental services

Vehicles were summarily seized and taken into custody by functionaries of the Authority

Validity

Even if any such power existed with Civil Aviation Authority, its exercise for such an oblique purpose would tantamount to an abuse thereof

High Court directed the Authority to release subject vehicles forthwith to registered owners or their duly authorized representatives

High Court further directed that aggrieved parties could prefer their claims for compensation/damages before competent Court of civil jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Trial Court committed material irregularity while conducting proceedings and not affording an opportunity to accused to produce his counsel

High Court set aside judgment passed by Trial Court and remanded matter for decision after affording an opportunity to accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Every citizen must be treated with equality and his dignity, liberty, life and honor must be guaranteed as envisaged in the Constitution

High Court not only has a right but a fundamental Constitutional duty that Fundamental Rights are not infringed.

Before initiation of any inquiry it was necessary to confront the allegation to a person against whom the allegation had been levelled which should disclose a positive proof that certain illegalities were made and after receiving the reply, any order under the law could be passed at the touchstone of due process of law, equity and fair play.

Vendetta could not equate itself with justice as the same was devoid of solemnity inherent in the process of law, leaving an offender as a victim, an object of sympathy at the end of the day, without judicial certainty about his guilt

Accused persons could not be allowed to go scot free without a tag

Convictions and sentences recorded by Trial Court and upheld by High Court required a serious reconsideration

Peculiarity of the situation wherein the incident occurred, suggested that first part of the occurrence triggered the outrage, instantaneously swaying upon faculties of accused persons having no motive or axe to grind; it was that spontaneity whereunder the accused persons resorted to violence without premeditation and choice weapons and thus consequences of their transgression

Such act more aptly fell within the mischief of S. 302(c), P.P.C., a statutory substitute for erstwhile 304, P.P.C.

Supreme Court altered the conviction to one under S. 302(c), P.P.C. and accused persons were sentenced to imprisonment for ten years

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner was arrested by NAB authorities on 24.12.2016 and since then charge had not been framed against the petitioner by the Trial Court

Plea raised by petitioner was that such incarceration of petitioner would tantamount to punishing him before his guilt was proved

Validity

Held, it was an inalienable right of every accused to have expeditious and fair trial, which right was guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Prosecution failed to give any definite time for conclusion of trial and accused could not be left at the mercy of authorities to rot in jail for an indefinite period

Inordinate delay in conclusion of trial of detained prisoner could not be lightly ignored provided it was not caused due to any act or omission of accused

Delay in prosecution of accused amounted to abuse of process of law and was a valid ground for grant of bail to accused

Delay in prosecution as ground for bail was to be weighed and judged on its merits

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Bank employee was terminated due to concealment of information against which departmental appeal was filed but same was dismissed

Contention of employee was that no proper inquiry was conducted and he was condemned unheard

Validity

Petitioner employee was appointed on contract basis in the Bank

Such like employees in normal course could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Nature of grievance and prayer made by aggrieved person would determine the maintainability of constitutional petition and not his status

Petitioner had been terminated without affording opportunity of hearing

Employee had not assailed his termination with reference to any of the terms and conditions of his contract appointment

Constitutional jurisdiction was invoked on the ground that service of petitioner had been terminated illegally and unlawfully

High Court observed that Employer Bank, being a public sector banking institution was supposed to act fairly and justly and adopt due process of law in the matters with regard to its employees irrespective of their status as 'regular' or 'contract' employees

Employee being a citizen of Pakistan also enjoyed certain legal rights which were protected by the Constitution and violation thereof would extend a right to him to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Employee had rightly invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in circumstances

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not determine any dispute arising out of any of the terms and conditions of contract employment

Petitioner employee had brought his case within the ambit of Art.199 of the Constitution

Nobody should be condemned unheard

No notice was issued to the petitioner prior to termination of his service which was in violation of principles of natural justice

Bank had failed to point out the detail of lapses on the part of employee

No material with allegation was confronted to the employee in the present case

Termination of services of employee on the basis of mere information provided by his previous employer through email was not justified

Petitioner being employee of a public sector institution could not be thrown out by issuance of a termination letter without proper hearing

Employer should have adopted due process of law prior to termination of service of employee

Impugned order was silent with regard to information which was allegedly suppressed by the petitioner

Bank had acted in a capricious and fanciful manner to terminate the services of employee

Impugned orders were illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction which were set aside

Bank was directed to reinstate the employee in service with effect from the date of his termination

Intervening period would be treated as leave of kind due

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners claimed to be owner of subject land and were aggrieved of orders passed by authorities whereby they were forcibly dispossessed from subject land

Validity

Adverse action was taken by authorities against petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing to them

Petitioners were not only entitled to get back possession of property in question but were also deserved to be permitted to again raise construction of demolished boundary wall at subject land

Action of dispossession of petitioners by authorities and demolishing boundary wall raised by them was not only illegal but was taken at instigation of respondents

Order passed by authorities was without justification, mala fide and void ab initio

Stand of respondent regarding ownership and/or location of survey number where subject land was situated was not only self-conflicting but also self-destructive

Such stand led to a presumption that respondent had no genuine case

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside orders passed by authorities and declared that all such actions taken/orders passed by authorities pursuant to such orders were mala fide, illegal without jurisdiction and of no legal effect

High Court directed the authorities to give peaceful possession of subject land to petitioners

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

If prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on part of prosecution could have reacted against sentence of death passed against a convict of capital charge

Accused was born deaf and dumb and was not capable to understand judicial proceedings as reflected from orders of Trial Court

Services of interpreter were provided to accused up to the stage of framing of charge only

Services of counsel on State expenses were provided to accused and there was nothing on record that counsel who was appointed on State expenses was able to get instructions from the accused who was deaf and dumb

Accused was incapable of making his defense and Trial Court did not act according to provisions of Ss. 464 & 465, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court also failed to conduct trial in terms of Art. 10-A of Constitution

High Court converted death sentence of accused into imprisonment for life

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Any order in violation of principles of Art.10-A is not sustainable in law because such order is void and of no legal effect.

Authorities exercising quasi-judicial powers under a statute were bound to conduct fair adjudication as to be dealt in accordance with law, due process and fair trial were unalienable Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Contention of petitioners was that they were necessary party to the lis but they were neither impleaded nor any notice was issued to them while making allotment of land

Validity

Ouster clauses of Para 26 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 115) and S. 28 of Land Reforms Act, 1977 were with regard to such orders which were made in accordance with law

When an order was passed in colourful exercise of powers and in violation of norms of justice, same could not be immuned from the judicial scrutiny nor a subservient legislation could abridge the Constitutional powers of High Court

Article 199 of the Constitution could postulate to strike down those orders and performance of functions which had been done or taken without lawful authority

Any order passed in colourful exercise of powers or in violation of any statutory command was an order without jurisdiction

Authority or tribunals were vested with powers to decide the matters rightly or wrongly

Whenever a tribunal went wrong in law then it went outside its jurisdiction rendering its judgment/order as without lawful authority

Impugned orders of Federal Land Commission had been passed in derogation of statutory command and in violation of all norms of justice and they were amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Proper procedure had not been adopted for grant of land in question

Federal Land Commission without verification of claims and hearing the other side had passed the impugned orders which could not be countenanced nor approved by any Court of law

Things were required to be done in the manner provided by law or not at all

Impugned orders being coram non judice could be challenged before the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction

Impugned orders had been passed in absence of all the interested parties who were going to be effected

Every tribunal or authority was bound to hear the other side before passing any order by which a party was going to be effected

Party going to be effected by the order had right of being heard before passing of such order

Every individual had right of fair trial both in civil as well as criminal proceedings

No concept of fair trial existed in absence of right of hearing or right of defence

Chairman Federal Land Commission had not only violated the principle of 'audi alteram partem, but also transgressed the Fundamental Right of the petitioners enshrined in Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Any order passed in violation of the provision of statute and in derogation of a guarantee enshrined in an Article of the Constitution was liable to be struck down being made or passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Impugned orders passed by the Federal Land Commission were set aside and mutations attested on the basis thereof were cancelled

Cases were remitted to Chief Land Commissioner with the direction to probe and verify the claims subject to declaration of Shariat Appellate Bench of Supreme Court

Commission should hear all the interested parties and decide the matter within specified time

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Accused is entitled to expeditious access to justice, which includes a right to fair and expeditious trial without any unreasonable and inordinate delay

Inordinate delay in imparting justice is likely to cause erosion of public confidence in judicial system on one hand and on the other hand it is bound to create a sense of helplessness, despair feeling of frustration and anguish apart from adding to their woes and miseries.

No action detrimental to life, liberty, body, reputation or property to any person could be taken except in accordance with law.

Contention of petitioner employee was that he was appointed against a permanent post and was entitled for regularization

Validity

Earlier, petitioner employee filed constitutional petition wherein department was directed to consider and assess his suitability for permanent absorption

Said order had not been complied with and petitioner employee had filed present constitutional petition for implementation of order in its true perspective

Petitioner employee was performing his duties for a considerable period of time against a permanent post

Regularization of petitioner employee was to be based in terms of the order passed by the High Court

No justification existed to seek advice of Federal Public Service Commission after order by the High Court which was not challenged in the Supreme Court

Department had no issue against the performance or working of petitioner employee

No rational or logic existed to extend the period of contract from time to time

To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was inalienable right of every citizen

Public functionaries were supposed to function in good faith honestly and within the precincts of their powers

State should ensure to eliminate all forms of exploitation

Authorities were directed to issue notification of petitioner's regularization in service within fifteen days

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Worker, who was performing his duties as a cashier at a Bank, was dismissed from service on the allegation of embezzlement/misappropriation

Labour Court ordered worker's reinstatement in service on the ground that during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the employer-Bank six witnesses were produced, but the worker was allowed to cross-examine only one such witness

Appellate Tribunal maintained reinstatement order passed by Labour Court but ordered stoppage of worker's increments for three years

High Court maintained order passed by Appellate Tribunal

Validity

Perusal of the record revealed that the worker had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself as it was quite evident that six witnesses were produced during the inquiry, but the worker was afforded the opportunity of cross-examining only one witness

Opportunity of fair trial had not been afforded to the worker by depriving him his right of cross-examining the witnesses as such it could be held that principles and procedures of due process of law and fair trial had not been followed, which were against the principles of natural justice

Supreme Court maintained orders passed by Appellate Tribunal and High Court and observed that it was the prerogative of the management of the employer-Bank to decide the designation/ posting of the worker in accordance with their norms and indoor management.

Worker, who was performing his duties as a cashier at a Bank, was dismissed from service on the allegation of embezzlement/misappropriation

Labour Court ordered worker's reinstatement in service on the ground that during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the employer-Bank six witnesses were produced, but the worker was allowed to cross-examine only one such witness

Appellate Tribunal maintained reinstatement order passed by Labour Court but ordered stoppage of worker's increments for three years

High Court maintained order passed by Appellate Tribunal

­Validity

Perusal of the record revealed that the worker had not been afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself as it was quite evident that six witnesses were produced during the inquiry, but the worker was afforded the opportunity of cross-examining only one witness

Opportunity of fair trial had not been afforded to the worker by depriving him his right of cross-examining the witnesses as such it could be held that principles and procedures of due process of law and fair trial had not been followed, which were against the principles of natural justice

Supreme Court maintained orders passed by Appellate Tribunal and High Court and observed that it was the prerogative of the management of the employer-Bank to decide the designation/ posting of the worker in accordance with their norms and indoor management.

Plea of grant of bail or protective bail in constitutional jurisdiction required to be attended carefully within parameters of Art.199 of the Constitution

Attendance of accused could not be substituted through attorney though S.205, Cr.P.C., provided mechanism whereby a Magistrate could dispense with personal attendance of accused

Such provision could not be taken to expand jurisdiction of High Court to grant bail which per S.497, Cr.P.C. was subject to arrest, detention, appearance or his bringing before a Court

Provisions of Art. 10-A of the Constitution insisted for fair trial which object could not be achieved without providing accused an opportunity to face the charge. particularly where accused himself volunteered to do so

If accused of cognizable offence showed his intention to face his trial and resorted to constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling him to land at Pakistan to approach proper courts, then he could resort for such purpose

Purpose of Red Notices was to seek location of a wanted person and his or her detention, arrest or restriction of movement for purposes of extradition, surrender or similar lawful action

Such by itself was not meant to declare the 'innocence or guilt' of the person against whom a Red Notice was issued nor it was in any way prejudice the rights of fair trial of such person

Intention of petitioner was to face charges and it would serve the purpose of Red Notice touching the object of fair trial as enshrined in the Constitution through insertion of Art.10-A of the Constitution

High Court declined to grant bail to the petitioner but enabled him to land at the lands of Pakistan and to immediately approach the proper Court for bail

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

No action detrimental to life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person should be taken except in accordance with law

Person could be dealt with or deprived of rights if it was provided and prescribed otherwise by any law.

No action detrimental to life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person be taken except in accordance with law.

During trial, application was filed on behalf of complainant to summon two persons as prosecution witnesses, who were not included in calendar of witnesses

Application filed by complainant was dismissed by Trial Court

Validity

Witnesses who were not named in Challan could not be introduced by complainant unless their evidence would appear to Trial Court essential for the just decision of the case

Counsel for complainant could only assist prosecution and while producing their own witnesses independently, complainant stepped out of the position of assisting the prosecution

Order passed by Trial Court covered provisions of S. 265-F(3), Cr.P.C.

Without a gist of evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C. provided to opposite side, examination of such witnesses by court at the instance of complainant would be violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners got admission in computer science discipline of the university but on their own, started attending classes of civil engineering unauthorizedly and without being transferred in accordance with the rules and regulations of the university somewhere at the end of first semester

Petitioners, without attending classes, had also appeared in one or two papers in the first semester in civil engineering department

While petitioners were appearing in second semester during third paper, they were caught by the authorities for unauthorizedly appearing in second semester thereafter their result of first semester was withheld

Grievance of the petitioners was that university had cancelled their admissions without any reason and justification

Validity

University authorities had taken stern action against petitioners by initiating disciplinary action and cancelling admissions of petitioners from the university without affording them an opportunity of being heard and defend their case

Authorities had denied petitioners their constitutional rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 & 10 of the Constitution

High Court set aside the letter issued by the university and restored admission of petitioners to the discipline of computer science

Petition was allowed accordingly.

When disputed facts were alleged by parties which could not be resolved giving opportunity to alleging party to prove their contention through production of evidence, any opinion, order or judgment would be considered illegal and passed in violation of Art. 10-A of the Constitution.

Hearing held in mechanical or perfunctory manner cannot be treated a "hearing" for the purpose of due process of law.

Subsequently four years after the said lease deed, revenue authorities cancelled the lease and resumed the land in favour of the State

Legality

Entire amount of lease had been paid to the Provincial Government

Institute had demonstrably utilized the land for the purpose it was granted

Neither a show-cause notice was issued citing the reason that might have required the Government to resume the land nor an opportunity of hearing was provided to the Institute

Provincial Government therefore clearly acted without due process

Fundamental Rights of the Institute under Arts.24(1) & 24(2) of the Constitution (Protection of property rights) were also violated

Institute was serving the people and providing valuable skills to a deprived sector, including teaching and showing models of sustainable living, water harvesting, biogas generation, utilization of wind and sun to generate electricity

Such skills being taught by the Institute accorded with law, international conventions and the latest scientific evidence

Provincial Government was expected to support the activities of the Institute but instead it acted unreasonably, illegally and unconstitutionally

Order of Provincial Government whereby it resumed the land leased to the Institute was declared to be illegal and unconstitutional and was struck down

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly with costs of Rs.20,000, which were to be paid to the Institute.

Petitioner institute was aggrieved of order passed by Higher Education Commission whereby permission to affiliate educational institutes had been withdrawn

Validity

Before issuing letter in question by Higher Education Commission neither any notice was issued to petitioner institute or affiliated educational institutions nor provided any opportunity of hearing to them and the same was violative of the principles of natural justice

Right of due process was a fundamental right of a person guaranteed under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Letter issued by Higher Education Commission was illegal, contrary to principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 10-A of the Constitution, therefore, was untenable and liable to set aside

High Court directed that Higher Education Commission might take any legal action within its jurisdiction strictly observing due process of law and letter issued by the Commission was set aside

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Any exercise conducted without due process of law was illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction.

Any audit exercise conducted thereafter, without adhering to due process of law by subordinate tax functionaries without selection of audit by the Board was not only illegal and unlawful but also without lawful competency and legal jurisdiction

Any exercise for audit of tax affairs of a registered person under S.25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 without adhering to due process of S.72B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 would tantamount to dire violation and flagrant deviation from the doctrine of "Due process of Law".

Accused was unable to afford and engage a defence counsel and the one provided by Trial Court only assisted the accused at belated stage of the trial

Fifty six (56) prosecution witnesses out of a total of sixty five (65) were examined without defence counsel

None of the said fifty six (56) witnesses were cross-examined by the accused due to non - presence of defence counsel

Duty of Trial Court

Necessity of counsel was so vital and imperative that the failure of the Trial Court to make an effective appointment of a counsel was a denial of due process of law

Principles.

Contention was that S.9 of the Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 was violative of the due process of law as provided under Art.10-A of the Constitution as no right of appeal was provided against the Wage Board Award

Held, to determine the question of declaring the Act as unconstitutional on the ground of non-provision of right of appeal against the decision of the Board, it was necessary for the court to bear in mind whether there was any dispute between two parties in an adversarial litigation against each other, which required to be decided by the Board, and as to whether the claim of entitlement of one of the parties was against the State or any State agency, which required determination by the Board or the Board was performing a legislative act where there was no existing right or dispute to be decided between the parties.

Contention was that Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973 was void and liable to be struck down for having failed to provide even a single right of appeal from any adjudicatory or directory orders or actions, interim or final made thereunder

Held, proceedings of the Board were akin to rules of conduct, which could be challenged in appropriate proceedings, either under Art.199 or Art.184(3) of the Constitution, if it was shown that the Board had acted in a perverse manner

Such would be different kind of challenge, which was available against a legislative activity and the right of appeal would come in where individual right was determined

Principles.

Question of fact or liability conclusively presumed without having recourse to procedural due process could not be said to have been determined under the due process of law.

Article 4 of the Constitution provides for due process of law and mandates that everyone is to be treated in accordance with law

Administrative discretion which is structurally unfettered and unchecked cannot be said to have been exercised in accordance with law and therefore fails to pass the test of "due process" under Art.4 of the Constitution

Walk-in-interviews, in the present case, were devoid of any objective criterion, therefore, violative of "due process" and fundamental rights of the applicants

Such interviews were declared to be ab initio unconstitutional and unlawful creating no right whatsoever in the successful candidates.

Article 4 of the Constitution provides for due process of law and mandates that everyone is to be treated in accordance with law

Administrative discretion which is structurally unfettered and unchecked cannot be said to have been exercised in accordance with law and therefore fails to pass the test of "due process" under Art. 4 of the Constitution

Walk-in-interviews, in the present case, were devoid of any objective criteria, therefore, violative of "due process" and fundamental rights of the applicants

Such interviews were declared to be ab initio unconstitutional and unlawful creating no right whatsoever in the successful candidates.

Access to justice is a fundamental right, any thing to the contrary is not permissible and the tribunals of limited jurisdiction are required to follow due process of law

Due process of law" means that individuals are not required to be only dealt with in accordance with law but it qualifies further that the process adopted in this context is open, fair and transparent therefore due determination of the default by an unbiased Tribunal or a Court is sine qua non and anything to the contrary is offensive to the legal parameters of settled law.

Doctrine discussed.