MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS and others
The petitioner challenged the High Court order dismissing his writ petition regarding the cancellation of the allotment of an evacuee trust property. The allotment of the shop in dispute was cancelled by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, due to a violation of allotment terms, and the property was ordered to be auctioned. The petitioner's departmental appeal and subsequent revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, were both dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the cancellation orders were mala fide and that he was condemned unheard. The Court held that allegations of mala fide are questions of fact requiring evidence which cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction, and noted that the record established the petitioner was indeed afforded an opportunity of hearing, thereby satisfying the rule of audi alteram partem. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings and dismissed the petition, ruling that the Secretary provided cogent reasons for rejecting the revision.
- Whether allegations of mala fide can be resolved as a question of fact in writ jurisdiction without considering evidence?
- Whether the rule of audi alteram partem is satisfied when an opportunity of hearing is provided during departmental revision proceedings?
- Whether an allotment of evacuee trust property can be cancelled for violation of allotment terms?
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court, dated 26-6- 1983 dismissing his writ petition in a matter relating to allotment of Evacuee Trust Property.
2. The facts are that petitioner's allotment of the shop in dispute, which was Evacuee Trust Property, was cancelled by the Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Sargodha, on the ground that he had violated the terms of the allotment. The said property was thereafter, ordered to be sold through auction. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of cancellation of his allotment which was dismissed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board. He then filed a revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad, which met the same fate.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended, firstly that the orders were mala fide as the officials of the Evacuee Trust Board had become hostile towards him due to the behaviour of his partner in business, namely, Shamshad Hussain and secondly that he had not been heard before the cancellation of his allotment.
4. We have heard the petitioner's counsel at some length. We are not inclined to go into the question of mala fide, which is a question of fact and can only be determined after considering evidence on this question. As for the question of the petitioner not having been heard before his allotment was cancelled, we find from the final order of the Secretary, Religious Affairs, Islamabad, dated 6-6-1983, that he was, in fact, heard. The rule of audi alteram partem is therefore, fully satisfied. We notice that the Secretary has given cogent reasons for the dismissal of the petitioner's revision petition and the petitioner's counsel has not been able to find any flaw in it. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.