Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1980 Karachi 400
Before Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and B. G. N. Kazi, JJ
HABIBULLAH‑Petitioner versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
SANGHAR AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑446 and D‑447 of 1.979, decided on 24th September, 1979.
Martial Law Order, 1977 [M. L. A. Zone 'C']
‑‑ No. 64, para. 2‑‑Cancellation of fire‑arm licences‑Impugned order cancelling fire‑arm licences of petitioners made without any notice and in a routine manner‑Finding of licence‑holder being an undesirable person and not fit to hold fire‑arm licence, held, could not be recorded without serving a show‑cause notice and/or granting hearing‑Cancella tion of licence under M. L. O. 64 carries with it a stigma of licence holder being an undesirable person‑Impugned order declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑[Natural justice, principle of].
Tanweer Ahrnad Khan v. District Magistrate, Sanghar P L D 1979 Kar. 732 rel.
Abdul Rahim Kazi (absent) for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th September, 1979.
FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.‑The action impugned in these two petitions is one under M. L. O. 64 cancelling the fire‑arms licences of the petitioners. Under the said M. L. O. such licences could be cancelled if the Iicensee is found to be an undesirable person and not a person fit to hold the licence. In both the cases the grievance of the petitioners is that the impugned orders were made without say notice to the petitioners and in a routine man ner. The learned Additional Advocate‑General was good enough to invite our attention to a D. B. decision reported in P L D 1979 Kar. 732 in which it has been held that a finding that a licence holder is an undesirable person and not fit
to hold fire‑arm licence, could not b,, recorded without serving the petitioner with a show‑cause notice and/or at least granting him hearing, because the cancellation of a licence under the said M. L. O. 64 carries) with it a stigma that the petitioner was an undesirable person. We are not only bound by this decision but are in respectful agreement and for the same reasons, the impugned orders in these two petitions are held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. 1n the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
M. Y. M. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer