Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑1315 of 1978, decided on 28th December, 1978.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑---

--‑‑Art. 199 read with Martial Law Order, 1977 [M. L. A. (Zone C)] No. 64‑Arms licence, cancellation of‑Show‑cause notice‑District Magistrate passing order of cancellation of licence without applying mind‑No show‑cause notice served on petitioner nor a personal hearing granted particularly in view of cancellation of licence under Martial Law Order carrying stigma of petitioner being an undesirable person not fit to hold arm licence‑Order being illegal, set aside, in circumstances.‑[Natural justice,. principle of].

Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.

Osman Ghani Rashid, A.‑G. (Sind) for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th November, 1978.

S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑

The petitioner has challenged the order of the respon dent No. 1 dated 21‑9‑1978, whereby his revolver Licence No. 4078/I1YD City dated 24‑3‑1976 was cancelled under the provisions of Martial Law Order No. 64. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principle of natural , justice inasmuch as he was neither given any show‑cause notice nor heard in the matter before passing of the order. .

2. Martial Law Order No. 64, issued by the M. L. A. Zone "C", provides as per paragraph 2 thereof as under:‑

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or rule for the time being in force, a District Magistrate shall review the licences for fire‑arms issued between 1st January, 1972, and 31st December, 1976, and if he is satisfied that any such licensee is an undesirable person 'and is not fit to hold the licence be shall cancel his licence."

The requirement of the above provision necessarily is that before cancelling any arms licence the Deputy Commissioner concerned must satisfy himself that the licensee was an undesirable person and not fit to hold a licence. Such finding could he given only after enquiry and it is pre requisite of law that the person concerned, against whom the enquiry is held, must be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed against him.

3. The learned Advocate‑General contended that the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal to the Government as provided in paragraph 3 of the M. L. O. We, however, find that the impugned order was issued on a cyclostyled pro forma and was passed by the learned District Magistrate without applying his mind as the order does not show that he was satisfied that the petitioner was an undesirable person and not fit to hold licence. Such a finding could only be recorded after serving the petitioner with a show‑cause notice and/or at least granting him a hearing of more particularly, because the cancellation of licence under the M. L. O.I carries with it a stigma that the petitioner was an undesirable person. Since the impugned order did not disclose any grounds the petitioner had nothing to urge in appeal before the Government, if he was to file one; as provided under paragraph 3 of the M. L.O.

4. For the above reasons we would allow this petition and declare that the impugned order dated 21‑9‑1978 was passed by the Respondent No. 1 without lawful authority. The petition thus succeeds but there will be no order as to costs.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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