Haji INAYATULLAH vs RATIONING CONTROLLER, PESHAWAR AND 5 OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the reduction of an Atta quota and cancellation of a licence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as president of an association holding a quota for its members, possessed a personal right requiring a show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing prior to the cancellation of the licence by the Deputy Commissioner. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the petitioner had no personal right in the matter, rendering any claim of being condemned unheard untenable. Consequently, upon being questioned by the court, the petitioner's counsel conceded the point and sought to withdraw the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the legal principle that an association representative managing a collective quota holds no independent personal right therein that would mandate individual procedural safeguards upon administrative alteration or cancellation.
- Does the president of an association distributing a government quota possess a personal right in the quota requiring a pre-decisional hearing upon its reduction or cancellation?
- Whether an administrative authority is obliged to issue a show-cause notice to a representative holding a collective quota on behalf of an association before cancelling the licence.
ORDER
1. ' G. SAEDAR SHAH, J.-The background of this case is that the Nanbais of Peshawar, as a measure of convenience, formed themselves into an Association and appointed one Haji Pir Bakhsh as its President in the year 1970. Now the main function of the Association was that its President Haji Pir Bakhsh used to collect from the Government 645 bags of Atta and distribute the same to the members of the Association. In due course Haji Pir Bakhsh was removed as President of the Association and in his place the petitioner was appointed as President. He, therefore, continued to collect from the Government 645 bags of Atta for distribution amongst his members. But in September 1977, the Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar, reduced the said quota by 165 bags and allotted the same to respondents 4 and 5: Faced with this situation the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which was admitted to hearing and in the meanwhile the operation of the order of the Deputy Commissioner was stayed. However, before the petition came up for final hearing the said order was withdrawn by the Deputy Commissioner with the result that the petition became infructuous and was accordingly dismissed on 16-10-1977. On 21-11-1977, however, the Deputy Commissioner passed a fresh order reducing the quota of the petitioner by 165 bags which he allotted to respondents 4 and 5. Not only this but by an order dated 27-12-1977, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the licence issued in the name of the previous President of the Association, namely, Haji Pir Bakhsh, and consequently the petitioner as successor of Haji Pir Bakhsh, challenged the said order of the Deputy Commissioner in the High Court, amongst others, on the ground that he had been condemned unheard. By a judgment of the High Court, dated 22- 3-1978, however, his writ petition was dismissed. And hence this petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Muhammad Afzal Bangash, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now the finding recorded by the High Court against the petitioner is that as President of the Nanbaic Association, Peshawar, in which capacity he used to collect 645 bags of Atta for distribution to his members, he had no personal right in the matter, and consequently it was idle on his part to contend that before cancelling the said licence the Deputy Commissioner was obliged to serve him with a show-cause notice, and afford him an opportunity of hearing. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are in respectful agreement with the said finding recorded in the High Court. And when the learned counsel was questioned as to how he could possibly object to the said finding he frankly conceded that he would be unable to do so. In this view of the matter he did not press the petition and prayed that he be allowed to withdraw the same.
3. ' This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed was as withdrawn. as withdrawn.