' I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:---
(1) Writ Petition No, 921 of 2002, (2) Writ Petition No, 922 of 2002, (3) Writ Petition No, 923 of 2002, (4)
Writ Petition No,924 of 2002, (5) Writ Petition No, 925 of 2002, (6) Writ Petition No, 926 of 2002, (7)
Writ Petition No, 927 of 2002, (8) Writ Petition No, 928 of 2002, (9) Writ Petition No, 929 of 2002. (10)
Writ Petition No, 930 of 2002. (11) Writ Petition No, 931 of 2002, (12) Writ Petition No, 932 of, 2002. (13)
Writ Petition No, 933 of 2002, (14) Writ Petition No, 934 of 2002, (15) Writ Petition No, 228 of 2002. (16)
Writ Petition No, 2591 of 2002, (17) Writ Petition No, 2592 of 2002, (18) Writ Petition No, 2593 of 2002,
(19) Writ Petition No, 2594 of 2002. (20) Writ Petition No, 2595 of 2002, (21) Writ Petition No, 2596 of 2002, (22) Writ Petition No, 2597 of 2002, (23) Writ Petition No,2598 of 2002, (24) Writ Petition No, 2599 of 2002, (25) Writ Petition No, 1647 of 2002, (26) Writ Petition No, 1957 of 2002. (27) Writ Petition No, 1646 of 2002, (28) Writ Petition No,8677 of 2001, (29) Writ Petition No, 8678 of 2001, (30) Writ Petition No, 9066 of 2001, (31) Writ Petition No, 9066 of 2001, (32) Writ Petition No, 9067 of 2001, (33)
Writ Petition No, 9068 of 2001, (34) Writ Petition No, 10273 of 2001, (35) Writ Petition No, 10292 of 2001.
(36) Writ Petition No, 10295 of 2001, (37) Writ Petition No, 10305 of 2001. (38) Writ Petition No, 10306 of 2001, (39) Writ Petition No, 15649 of 2001. (40) Writ Petition No, 15650 of 2001, (41) Writ Petition. No, 16308 of 2001 and (42) Writ Petition No, 18477 of 2001.
2. the petitioners secured land from the respondents after securing licenses from the respondents.
The petitioners allegedly constructed buildings over the land in question from their own pockets.
The A respondents enhanced the rent/fee of licenses off and on. The relationship between the petitioners and respondents continuously remained peaceful till 1999. Thereafter, the respondents enhanced the rent/fee vide circular, dated 9-4-2001. The petitioners being aggrieved filed representations before the respondents which were rejected by the respondents without applying their independent minds. The petitioners being aggrieved filed these writ petitions.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the representations of the petitioners after applying their independent minds with reasons without fear, favor, nepotism and within reasonable time as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. They further urge that the respondents violated the terms of their policies in which the respondents had mentioned that the respondents should enhance the rent double but the respondents in violation of their own policies, enhanced the rent arbitrarily without any reasonable criteria from 1000 to 1300%. They further submit that action of the respondents does not fall within the parameters of fair play. The respondents being public functionaries are duty bound to take action keeping in view the principle of fair play. They further urge that the respondents decided the representations of the petitioners without issuing the notices to the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents on the representations is also hit by principle of natural justice. They further urge that the respondents have no lawful authority to enhance the rate unilaterally without adopting any reasonable criteria.
4. The learned legal advisor of the respondents submits that the respondents i,e, Railways Board has lawful authority to pass the order of enhancement qua the rate of rent/fee. He further submits that the respondents-Board passed the impugned order being lawful authority vide Letter No,MOR's-W-11-2000/LA/29, dated 9-4-2001 after discussion with the petitioners, He further urges that the respondents reduced the rent after discussion with the petitioners after providing proper hearing to the petitioners and reduced the rent in question qua the premises in question i,e, 60% sq.
Ft. On main road and 40% on side road. He further submits on the basis of para. No,3 of the policy that rate was fixed after numbers of Meetings with the petitioners with the consent of the Minister.
He further submits that. The respondents are ready to consider the cases of the petitioners, in case the petitioners shall pay the rent to the respondents at 15% prevailing market value.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that the respondents admitted in report and parawise comments that the respondents have lawful authority to increase the rent on the basis of Railway Headquarter policy circular vide, dated 11-8-1987. They further submit that on the basis of aforesaid policy, the respondents have only lawful authority to enhance the rent double of the existing rent. They further. Submit that cases of the petitioners fall in Item No,4, whereas the respondents considered the cases of the petitioners in Item No,
7. They further urge that the respondents did not take this stand in the report and parawise comments qua the new policy. The aforesaid policy letter was subsequently, amended by the respondents under the order of the competent authority, therefore, the ground which was urged by the learned legal advisor of the respondents had not mentioned in report and parawise comments, therefore, the respondents-Board has no lawful authority. They further submit that the respondents enhanced the rates off and on till 1999 which was mentioned by the petitioners in paras. Nos.7, 8 and 9 in the Writ Petition No,921 of 2002 which was not denied by the respondents in their report and parawise comments. They further submit that the petitioners are ready to pay 15% market value as per policy, dated 11-8-1987 mentioned in the report and parawise which would be twice rent being paid at present by the petitioners to the respondents.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
7. It is admitted fact that the respondents did not attach subsequent policy, dated 9-4-2001 alongwith report and parawise comments. The impugned order passed by the respondents on the representations of the petitioners, do not contain any reason. After addition of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, it is the duty and obligation of the public functionaries to decide the representations of the petitioners with reasons. It is pertinent to mention here that section 24-A in the General Clauses Act has retrospective effect being procedure in natural. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:--- ' Messrs' Airport Support's case 1998 SCM R 2268 and Zain Yar Khan's case 1998 SCM R 2419.
' In the aforesaid judgments, the Humble Supreme Court has laid down the following principle:--- "The rule is founded on the premises that the public functionaries deriving authority from or under law, are obliged to act justly, fairly equitably, reasonably, without any element of discrimination and squarely within parameters of law, as applicable in a given situation."
' The Honourable Supreme Court has laid down guideline to the public functionaries to act within framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530. The petitioners did not attach subsequent policy with the writ petitions, therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners that subsequent rate/fee was fixed by the respondents in consultation with the petitioners, have no force. The respondents must decide the representations of the petitioners after providing proper hearing to the petitioners, The impugned order passed on the representations of the petitioners clearly reveals that the same was passed by the respondents without hearing to the petitioners, therefore, the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law on the well-known principle of natural justice. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:--- ' Zakir Ahmad's case PLD 1965 SC 90, Pakistan and others' case PLD 1987 SC 304 and Pakistan Chrome Mines' case 1983 SCM R 1208.
' In view of what has been discussed above, the impugned order passed by the respondents on the representations of the petitioners which is at page No, 87 in Writ Petition No, 921 of 2002 is set aside meaning thereby the representations filed by the petitioners before the respondents shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. The petitioners are directed. To appear before the Chairman, Pakistan Railways in his office at 11-00 a.m. On 30-7-2002, who is directed to decide the representations of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law after providing proper hearing to the all concerned including the petitioners keeping in view the principle of fair play 'preferably within one month after receiving the order of this Court. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, the respondents are restrained to take any action against the petitioners till the aforesaid date.
' With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of.