Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑1094 of 1978, decided on 24tkt September, 1979.

--‑‑Art. 199 read with Criminal Procedure Code. (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedings‑Order passed in review against petitioner without providing to ‑petitioner an opportunity of being heard‑Held, void and of no legal effect‑Rule of natural justice (audi alteram partem) having been violated order quashed, in circumstances.‑[Natural justice, principle of].

Mohsin Tayabali for Petitioner.

A. Sattar Shaikh, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th September 1979.

This petition calls in question the requisitioning of the petitioner's house by the respondents.

By an order dated 16‑7‑ 978, the respondent requisitioned the peti tioner's house No. A‑1, First Floor, situated at Plot No. B. C. 4 & 5, Block No. 5 Scheme No. 6, Clifton, Karachi. The petitioner filed a review against the order of requisitioning which was disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner South, Karachi, without hearing the petitioner by rejecting an adjournment application made by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground of his illness.

It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not heard in the review proceedings, the impugned order passed in review was void and of no legal effect for violating rule of natural justice of audi alteram partem.

Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh, learned Additional Advocate‑General, in reply very fairly stated that even if the Deputy Commissioner was com petent to reject the adjournment application, he ought to have adjourned the matter on account of illness of the petitioner's counsel and decided the review application on merits after hearing the petitioner whose valu able rights were involved, and therefore he had no objection if the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in review is set aside and the case is remanded to the said officer for giving fresh decision, if necessary, after hearing the petitioner: To .this, Mr. Mohsin Tayabali stated that while he had no objection to the matter being remanded, it may be left open to the petitioner to approach this Court again in, case any adverse decision is given against him in the review application,' to which Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh agreed.

It being an admitted position that the petitioner was not heard in review involving valuable rights of the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate‑General has rightly conceded to the petition, being allowed. Accordingly, we allow this petition, declare the impugned order passed in review to be void for violating the rule of natural justice and quash it, and direct the Deputy Commissioner to decide the review application afresh after hearing the petitioner, unless the house in question is de‑requisitioned for any other reason and it is not felt neces sary to decide the review application. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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