Find a Lawyer

Civil. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 991 of 1976, decided on 20th February, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 17‑8‑76 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 2073 of 1976).

‑‑ Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Findings of fact recorded by adminis trative authorities‑Held, could not successfully be gone into in writ jurisdiction especially when based on some material before recording authority.

Mohammad Hussain etc. v. Sikandar etc. P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.

‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Contention that two orders being passed by District Magistrate on same date ‑in respect of same cause of action on same allegations, District Magistrate became functus officio after passing first order and could not pass second order‑Each order of District Magistrate being to same effect and resulting in cancellation of petitioner's authorisation, there being no inconsistency between two orders, and two orders being necessitated due to two separate complaints, contention, held, of no avail to petitioner.

Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1979.

.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 17‑8‑76 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 2073 of 1976 arising out of the cancellation of authorisation of his depot in District Campbellpnr.

In pursuance of a general inspection of the petitioner's depot and complaints from the general public action was initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer appointed in the matter recommended the cancellation of authorisation and forfeiture of his security amount. This recommendation was accepted by the District Magistrate who passed an order on 24‑2‑76 cancelling the depot authorisation of the petitioner. On the same date another order was passed by the District Magistrate. This had seemingly arisen out of six allegations against the petitioner who was given opportu nity to show cause and it was. observed that the petitioner had been guilty of the malpractices of the terms and conditions of his authorisation which rendered him unfit for the assignment. The authorisation was, accordingly, cancelled.

The petitioner filed two separate appeals against these orders, which were dismissed by a single order on 15‑4‑76 and a revision to the Govern ment also failed on 19‑7‑76. In his writ petition filed to challenge these orders the petitioner contended that there was not sufficient material before the authorities‑for a finding against him and that in respect of one of the allegations, namely, that he had not displayed the notice board as required by para. 4 of the authorisation the position was that such a notice board did exist. A learned Judge of the High Court refused to interfere on the ground that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities could not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction and that the appreciation of evidence was also not permissible under Article 199 of the Constitution as held by this Court in Mohammad Hussain etc v. Sikandar etc. (PLD1974SC139.). .

In support of this petition for special leave the points taken before the High Court are reiterated. It is also submitted that there were two orders of the same date by the District Magistrate in respect of the same cause of action and on the same allegations and that one of the two orders was void ab initio because after passing the first order the District Magistrate had become functus officio.

So far as the findings recorded by the authorities are concerned we are in agreement with the High Court that the findings of fact could not successfully be gone into in writ jurisdiction, especially when the finding of fact is based on some material before the authority recording it.

So far as the contention in respect of the two orders of the District Magistrate of the same date i.e. 24‑2‑76 is concerned, we find that this point has not been taken before the appellate and revisional authority. In the writ petition a ground to this effect was taken but it seems that it was not raised at the time of arguments, for it does not find a mention in the order of the High Court. Be as it may, each order of the District Magistrate is to the same effect and results in the cancellation of the petition er's authorisation. The contention that the District Magistrate had become functus officio, even if it is accepted would be of no avail because the first order also cancelled his authorisation. Secondly, there is no inconsistency between the orders and it appears that the two orders were probably necessi tated because action had commenced against the petitioner on the basis of the general inspection which revealed irregularities being committed by him and also on the basis of general complaint by the general public. It is not the case of the petitioner that his authorisation was cancelled in an illegal manner or in violation of the principles of natural justice. Indeed it would be difficult for him to so contend because he has been heard even by the appellate and revisional authority.

The upshot is that there is no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.