Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. No. 1188/83, decided on 2nd November, 1983.

(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑6‑1983, in W.P. No. 234/11/33).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Question of mala fide‑‑Held, a question of fact which cannot be gone into by Supreme Court.‑‑[Question of fact].

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Allotment of evacuee trust property cancelled on ground of violation of terms of allotment‑‑‑Revisional authority duly hearing petitioner before dismissing his revision petition on cogent reasons‑‑No flaw in such order pointed out‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.

Fazal‑i‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and 2.

Respondent No. 4 in person.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1985.

.‑‑ The petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court, dated 26‑6‑1983 dismissing his writ petition in a matter relating to allotment of Evacuee Trust Property.

2. The facts are that petitioner's allotment of the shop in dispute, which was Evacuee Trust Property, was cancelled by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Sargodha, on the ground that he had violated the terms of the allotment. The said property was thereafter, ordered to be sold through auction. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of his allotment which was dismissed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board. He then filed a revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad, which met the same fate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, firstly that the orders were mala fide as the officials of the Evacuee Trust Board had become hostile towards him due to the behavior of his partner in business, namely, Shamshad Hussain and secondly that he had not been heard before the cancellation of his allotment.

4. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length. We are not inclined to go into the question of mala fide, which is a question of fact and can only be determined after considering evidence on this question. As for the question of the petitioner not having been heard before his allotment was cancelled, we find from the final order of the Secretary, Religious Affairs, Islamabad, dated 6‑6‑1983, that he was, in fact, heard. The rule of audi alteram partem is therefore, fully satisfied. We notice that the Secretary has given cogent reasons fur; the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition and the petitioner counsel has not been able to find any flaw in it. The petition is therefore, dismissed.

S . Q . 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.