ABDUL BADSHAH and 9 others vs ABDUR RASHID and 5 others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging an order passed by an Appellate Tribunal regarding building regulations. The core legal question concerned whether the Appellate Tribunal acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by deciding an appeal without providing the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, specifically regarding the interpretation of paragraph 11 of the N.-W.F.P. Building Regulation, 1985. The petitioners contended that their rights were adversely affected by this procedural omission. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the record supported the petitioners' claim that they were not afforded a proper hearing. The Advocate-General for N.-W.F.P. conceded that the matter required reconsideration. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Appellate Board for a fresh decision. The Court established the principle that an appellate authority must provide a fair opportunity of hearing to affected parties before adjudicating matters that impact their legal rights, ensuring compliance with due process and relevant regulations.
- Does an appellate authority have a legal obligation to provide a hearing to the parties before deciding an appeal?
- Can an appellate order be set aside if it was passed without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard?
- Paragraph 11, N.-W.F.P. Building Regulation, 1985
ORDER
' ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J---Leave counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeal filed by the petitioners before the Appeal Board involved important questions, including interpretation of para. 11 of the N.-W.F.P. Building Regulation, 1985, affecting the rights of the petitioners, but the Appellate Tribunal decided the appeal without hearing the petitioners. Learned counsel in this connection referred to the decision of the Appellate Board contained in pages 51, 52 and 53 of the paper-book and the notice appearing at page 76, which appeared to support his contention.
Having so submitted, learned counsel further stated that he would be satisfied if the petitioners are given due opportunity of hearing and the matter is decided after considering the contentions urged by their counsel at the hearing.
2. Mr. Akbar Swati, Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Is present and in reply he submitted that in the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he would agree that the appeal needs to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel and had no objection to the matter being remanded for the purpose. Submission made by the learned Advocate-General is only proper and reassuring. Agreeing, therefore, with both the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the Appeal Board is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appeal Board for deciding it afresh after hearing the petitioners and their counsel according to law and regulations pertaining to the matter. The appeal may be decided expeditiously, preferably, within one month. The petition is disposed of with the above observations.