M/s. AL-MAHMUDIA (PVT.) LTD. vs PAKISTAN through Secretary M/O Housing
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, concerning the requirement of personal hearing before a competent authority. The core legal question was whether a hearing provided before a Section Officer satisfies the legal and constitutional requirements, or if a hearing before the higher competent authority is mandatory. The Supreme Court held that following the precedent established by a larger Bench in Federation of Pakistan vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and two others (1999 SCMR 2744), a hearing before a Section Officer is sufficient and meets the requirements of Article 32 Order P0(1) 1983. Consequently, the Supreme Court approved the earlier view of the larger Bench, dismissed the petition, and declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's refusal to interfere with the impugned order.
- Whether a hearing before a Section Officer satisfies the legal requirements of a personal hearing?
- Does a larger Bench judgment prevail over a subsequent smaller Bench judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Is a petitioner entitled to a hearing before the competent authority directly under Article 32 Order P0(1) 1983?
- Article 32 Order P0(1) 1983
ORDER
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ.--This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 5.6.2006 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
2. Learned counsel stated that in view of the judgment in the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Education vs. Pr. Dr. Anwar and two others (2006 SCM R 382) the petitioner is entitled for hearing before the competent authority by way of submitting his reply. In this behalf it may be noted that a larger Bench of this Court earlier delivered a judgment in the case of Federation of Pakistan vs. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and two others (1999 SCM R 2744) and settled that hearing before Section Officer is sufficient. Relying upon the same judgment, learned High Court had observed that hearing before Section Officer will meet the requirements of Article 32 Order P0(1) 1983.
2. We are inclined to agree with the judgment delivered by a larger Bench comparing the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel, therefore, the earlier view taken in Tariq Pirzada's case (ibid) is approved and petition is dismissed holding that the High Court had rightly declined to interfere in the impugned order following the law laid down in the judgment delivered by a larger Bench of this Court.
'Petition is dismissed and leave declined.