ZAFAR PERVEZ SHEIKH vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director
This constitutional petition challenges the cancellation of an exemption granted to the petitioner regarding a plot by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). The petitioner contended that the cancellation order, dated 4-10-2000, was issued without providing him an opportunity of hearing, despite previous correspondence acknowledging the allotment and the petitioner's subsequent deposit of funds. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could unilaterally cancel the petitioner's allotment without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing. The Lahore High Court observed that the respondent failed to demonstrate that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned cancellation letter. Consequently, the Court held the cancellation order to be without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The Court directed the LDA to issue a proper show-cause notice to the petitioner and to decide the matter afresh after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and considering all relevant evidence, thereby affirming the necessity of procedural fairness in administrative actions affecting vested rights.
- Can an administrative authority cancel an allotment of a plot without providing the affected party an opportunity of hearing?
- Is an order passed by a public authority without affording a right of hearing considered to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an administrative body cancels a vested right without following procedural fairness?
ORDER
' The main grievance of the petitioner is that the letter dated 4-10-2000, Annexure 'I', whereby exemption of his plot has been cancelled/withdrawn, was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to him, despite the fact that in the earlier correspondence between the parties, this allotment had been acknowledged, and in pursuance thereof the petitioner had also deposited certain amount with the respondent LDA. Moreover, the entitlement of the petitioner has been acknowledged not only in the correspondence attached with this writ petition, but also in the comments filed by the LDA, on the question, whether the petitioner is entitled to this plot or some other plot.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent LDA, when confronted, has not been able to establish from the record, if the opportunity of hearing, had been given to the petitioner before the letter Annexure 'I', was issued. Resultantly, such letter is declared to be without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The respondent-Department is directed to issue the petitioner a proper show-cause notice, and shall decide the matter afresh, after hearing the petitioner, keeping into account all the evidence brought before it. Disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- Col.(Retd.) S. MAQBUL ILLAHI through Attorney vs PAKISTAN DEFENCE 2009 YLR 282
- Col. (Retd.) S. Maqbul Ilahi through its Attorney Sulman Mahbub Illahi vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi through its Administrator 2009 C.L.R. 396
- Col. (Retd.) S. Maqbul Llahi Through Its Attorney Sulman vs Pakistan K.L.R. 2009 Labour & Service Cases 100