Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1056 1993 SLD 1056 1993 CLC 2344
Lahore High Court
Intra-Court Appeal No. 358 of 1992, heard on 5th April, 1993.
MUNIR A. SHAIKH AND CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

KHURRAM ALI

VS

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others

Law:

Section:

Licence and licensee--- ---- Natural justice, principles of---Where licence issued to licensee for a fixed period of three years, was to be withdrawn or cancelled on any grounds, licensee was entitled to an opportunity of hearing for which notice should have been issued to him---Grant of licence itself though was not a right, but once same was granted, it would create valuable rights in grantee thereof and same could not be cancelled and withdrawn without affording grantee opportunity of hearing---Act of cancellation/withdrawal of licence of licensee without affording licensee opportunity of being heard before such cancellation and withdrawal was violative of rules of natural justice. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J: --This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is directed against the order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the learned single Judge through which W.P. No. 5884 of 1992 filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal shortly stated are that on 29-3-1990 the appellant was granted catering licence for Dining Car of 7-UP/8 DN Tezgam Train for two rakes for a period of three years subject to the condition of satisfactory performance. 3. According to the appellant without issuance of any notice to him and passing any formal order for the cancellation of his said catering licence, applications were invited by the respondents on 3-6-1992 for grant of catering licences in respect of all the Trains and in pursuance thereto licences too have been granted to other persons. This act by implication amounted to cancellation of the catering licence of the appellant, therefore, feeling aggrieved he filed W.P. No.5884 of 1992 which has been dismissed through the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection based on the rule laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in I.CA. No.280 of 1992 that the appellant being a licence-holder it was not necessary to hear him before cancellation of the said licence, therefore, his remedy was to file a suit for damages if according to him the impugned act had caused any financial loss to him. He also argued that proper…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492