DAWOOD CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED Versus THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLIES,GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES, KARACHI

AJMAL MIAN, J. ‑ ‑This Petition is directed against the orders dated 3‑12‑1986 and 4‑12‑1986, which are contained in letter No. TL‑3/82655/Dawood/Imp/III/8;/39 dated 3‑12‑1986 and letter No. CDN 1U Misc/23/53/Pt‑VII dated 4‑12‑1986 addressed by the Director of Supplies and Deputy Director (CDN‑S) for Director General, Supplies.

By the first order the Provincial Chief Secretaries of the four provinces have been informed that the petitioner failed to supply 5000 bales of new imported jute bags and, therefore, the same were to be purchased at their risk. The Chief Secretaries were requested to intimate if any amount was payable to the petitioner by their Governments and they were also requested to withheld the payment, if any, payable whereas under the second order the petitioners have been black listed.

2. In the petition in has not been stated whether factually any four of the Provincial Governments are liable to pay any amount to the petitioner and that whether any amount in fact has been withheld by any of the Provincial Government in response to the aforesaid letter dated 3‑12‑1986. We are, therefore, not inclined to grant any relief in respect of the above letter. However, it will be open to the petitioner to seek other legal, remedy, if any, available.

3. As regards the second letter whereby the petitioners have been black listed, it may be observed that it is an admitted position that before the passing of the impugned order the petitioners were not heard nor they were issued any show‑cause notice. Mr.Nasim Farooqi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the case of Joseph v. the Executive Engineer (PWD) reported in AIR 1978 S C 930, in which it was held that the appellant was entitled to the opportunity of being heard before he was blacklisted as a Government contractor. We are also inclined to subscribe to the above view and hold that before the petitioner could have been blacklisted, they should have been issued a show‑cause notice and should have been heard. We, therefore, allow the petition to the extent of declaring the above order dated 4‑12‑1986 as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

4. Mr. Imam Ali G. Kazi, learned Deputy Attorney General, requests that this Court may clarify that it will be open to the respondent to take a fresh action. In our view, it is not necessary to clarify this as it is always open to the respondent in such a case to take fresh action in accordance with law.

Mr. Nasim Farooqi also requests that this Court may clarify that it will be open to the petitioner to seek refund of the licence fee which he had paid on the import licence. The petitioner may seek a remedy in accordance with law.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no orders as to costs.

H . B . T . / D‑14/ K Order accordingly.