MOHARRAM ALI SHAH AND Another vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition filed by a depot-holder challenging the cancellation of his depot by the District Food Controller, Sheikhupura. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner had been denied the right to a fair hearing, specifically regarding the allegation that he was not associated with the preliminary inquiry conducted prior to the cancellation order. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention was without merit. The Court observed that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice, had submitted a reply, and was personally heard by the District Food Controller before the adverse order was passed. Furthermore, the petitioner had also been heard by the Appellate Court and the Revisional Authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, establishing the principle that where an individual has been provided with a show-cause notice and afforded personal hearings at multiple stages of the administrative process, the requirement of natural justice is satisfied, and a claim of being condemned unheard cannot be sustained.
- Can a party claim to have been condemned unheard if they were issued a show-cause notice and granted personal hearings by the original, appellate, and revisional authorities?
- Is a party entitled to be associated with a preliminary inquiry in administrative proceedings if they are subsequently given a full opportunity to be heard before the final order is passed?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J -The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-11-1981, dismissing their writ petition.
2. Moharram Ali Shah is a Depot-Holder whose depot was cancelled by the District Food Controller, Sheikhupura, on 15-12-1980.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel is that he was not associated with the preliminary inquiry as such he had been con--demned unheard. It is not disputed that a show- cause notice was issued to him to which he gave a reply and was heard personally by the District Food Controller, before the order in question was passed. He was also beard by the Appellate Court as well as by the Revisional Authority. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that in the circumstances, the petitioner cannot plead that he was not heard. Consequently the petition dismissed as being without merit.