MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus GOVT. OF PUNJAB
The petitioner was a depot‑holder in Chak No. 104/GB, Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyalipur. Mohammad Siddique and Mohammad Ibrahim sons of Jhanday Khan of the same village made a complaint against the petitioner alleging certain irregularities on his part. The matter was attended to by the District Food Controller who, by means of his order dated the 3rd July 1974, found the petitioner guilty and passed a punishment of forfeiting the security of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 25.00. It is to be mentioned that the depot had, in the meantime, been temporarily suspended, and when the District Food Controller passed the aforesaid order he closed the case by inflicting the penalty hereinbefore mentioned and restored the depot of the petitioner.
2. Mohammad Ibrahim respondent No. 4 submitted' an appeal which was addressed to the Minister for Food Punjab‑(copy Annex. `C'). This appeal was attended to in the Secretariat and the learned Secretary Food on 2‑11‑1974 cancelled the depot of the petitioner. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.
3. Parawise comments, report and the record in this case were called for. The position which emerges from the file has been mentioned by me in my order dated 4‑2‑1975, which as quite explicit and is reproduced below in extenso :‑
"Mr. Ihsan Ali, A. F. C., Jaranwala is present with the record. The F. C. made a statement before me that the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled on 6‑11‑1974 and that he was heard on 26‑10‑1974. On scrutiny of the file, however, it transpired that this statement was false. Actually, the authorization had been cancelled by the Secretary on 29‑8‑1974. It was, therefore, pointed out to the Secretary that under clause 6(3) of the Foodstuffs Distribution Order, 1967, the Government shall not pass an order revising or modifying an. order affecting any person without giving such person an opportunity of being heard. It was suggested in the noting‑file that as the depot‑holder had not been heard either by D. S. (F) or the Secretary Food, the office felt that the affected depot‑holder might challenge this order for this technical omission. Actually the earlier order had been passed on the noting of the Deputy Secretary Food. On this noting, the D. S. (F) directed that the petitioner should appear in person on 24‑9‑1974 and that the order of cancellation may not be issued in the meantime. This suggestion was approved again by the Secretary Food. On 26‑10‑1974, the Deputy Secretary Food then passed the following order:‑
'Petitioner and respondent both present alongwith their counsel. Heard both I see no reason to revise my findings at parst: 11 to 13 ante. S. F. C., may please confirm his order at para. 16'."
This suggestion was initialled by the Secretary Food on 2‑11‑1974 where after formal orders were issued on 6‑11‑1974. The point whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authorization of the petitioner could have been cancelled in this manner requires consideration. Admit. Notice.
2. From the file it has transpired that a complaint was made against the petitioner by Mohammad Siddiq and Muhammad Ibrahim sons of Jhandey Khan of the same village on which the authorization of the petitioner was cancelled and was later on allotted to Dil Mohammad son of Umar Din and Mohammad Siddiq son of Jhandey Khan residents of the same village. Let Dil Mohammad and Muhammad Ibrahim be impleaded as respondents and notices be issued to them for next date of hearing. The point involved is a short one. Let the main case come up for hearing on J7‑2‑1975.
3. The record produced from the office of the Secretary Food has been retained. It should be kept under a sealed cover in the Registrar's Office and be put up on the next date of hearing.
4. The case has been taken up today in pacca hearing. Mr. Nina Ali Shah, learned Advocate for the State, has very fairly and frankly .conceded that in view of the point highlighted in the admitting order he would not be in a position to support the order of the Secretary. I am also of the same view that the order of the Secretary which was passed without hearing the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect against him. It is to be noticed that the Secretary personally did not hear the petitioner at any stage of the case and acted merely. as a simple signing machine or a tool in the hands of the D. S. (F) without applying his own A ‑independent mind to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even ‑the D. S. (F) placed the cart before the horse, inasmuch as, he recorded the relevant findings first and heard the petitioner afterwards which course obviously was illegal. As a matter of fact, he possessed no authority under the law to conduct a hearing or to pass any order himself. Accepting the writ petition the aforesaid order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against the petitioner and is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. The file of the department should be returned to them.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.