MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND Another vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the actions of the Border Area Committee regarding the petitioners' externment. The petitioners, residents of a border area, were proceeded against under the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, for activities prejudicial to the security or economy of Pakistan. After failing to respond to notices or participate in proceedings, they were declared undesirable persons and subsequently externed. The petitioners later sought permission to re-enter the area, claiming ownership of immovable property, which was refused. The High Court dismissed their challenge, finding the Committee's actions regular and noting the petitioners' own negligence in failing to disclose their property interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the petitioners could not complain of illegality when their own non-compliance with statutory notices caused the situation. The Court emphasized that the petitioners' right to compensation for their immovable property remained protected under the High Court's order, and thus, no interference was warranted.
- Can a party who fails to respond to statutory notices and participate in administrative proceedings later challenge the resulting order as illegal?
- Does the failure of a party to disclose immovable property to the Border Area Committee preclude them from later claiming compensation for that property?
- Is the High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition against an administrative order where the petitioner's own negligence caused the adverse outcome?
- Section 5, West Pakistan Border Area Regulation 1959
- Paragraph 6, West Pakistan Border Area Regulation 1959
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners in this case, who were residents of a village situated in the border area of the Lahore Sector were proceeded against under section 5 of the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959, on the ground that they were engaged in smuggling or in some other activity prejudicial to the economy or security of Pakistan.
2. Notices were served on them to appear before the Border Area Committee to show cause. They did so on the first day but thereafter they did not participate in the proceedings. Hence, on the 12th May 1967, they were declared undesirable persons. Subsequently notices were again issued to them to declare their immovable properties, if any, within the border area. They neither appeared nor supplied any information nor challenged the order of the Border Area Committee, but voluntarily removed themselves from the border area with the result that the Border Area Committee took it for granted that they had no immovable property within the area and ordered their externment from 9-6-1967.
3. Thereafter they applied to the Deputy Commissioner under sub-Para. (b) of paragraph 6 of the said Regulation, for permission to re-enter into the area on the ground that they had immovable properties in this area. This permission was refused on the 10th December, 1968. The refusal was sought to be challenged before the High Court by a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962.
4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat took the view that the Border Area Committee had acted with regularity after holding necessary enquiries into the matter with notice to the petitioners. Whatever was done by the Border Area Committee was, therefore, regular and legal. The petitioners themselves, it was felt, had brought this misfortune upon themselves by not responding to the notices of the Border Area Committee and disclosing the fact that they possessed immovable properties within the Border Area. Had they done so the Committee, it was observed, would have followed the procedure prescribed in para. 6 of the Regulation and offered them compensation as required there under. Nevertheless the learned Judge while dismissing the writ petition directed that the petitioners 'should be provided with adequate compensation as required under the law, within a period of four months and if this was not done then the petitioners should have the liberty to apply to the High Court again for suitable action.
5. This order has been upheld by a Letters Patent Bench which dismissed the appeal in limine. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal to this Court.
6. We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the High Court. The Border Area Committee was in no way at fault. The petitioners by disregarding the notices issued by the Committee had brought about this situation. They cannot no be allowed to urge that the Border Area Committee had acted illegally. If it had been brought to the notice of the Border Area Committee that they had immovable properties in this area, the Committee would have acted in accordance with law and offered them compensation. In any event their right to receive the compensation has been adequately protected by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere.