' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This order will dispose of Press Appeals Nos.5, 6 and 7 of 2005 as common question of law and fact is involved therein.
2. The appellants are obtaining the declaration of the publication of daily newspaper in the name of "Islam", monthly digests "Voice of Islam" and "Zarb-e-Tayyaba" under the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance, 2002, (hereinafter called as Ordinance, 2002).
Their declaration had been cancelled by the District Officer (Co-ordination) Lahore, City District Government, Lahore/respondent No, 2 vide letters dated 6-8-2005 and 15-8-2005.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent and parawise comments were also called for from him. For ready reference, the letters mentioned above are reproduced as under:-- "(1) It has been reported by the Director-General, Public Relations, Government of the Punjab, Press Laws Branch, Lahore that you are not publishing the "Zarb-e-Tayyaba" Lahore. The Director-General Public Relations, Government of the Punjab Press Laws Branch, Lahore has further reported that you have not supplied the printed issues of the periodical to the DGPR's Office.
' In view of the above, the declaration of Urdu/Monthly "Zarb-eTayyaba", Lahore has been notified as cancelled under section 11(i) of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance, 2002.
(Sd.)
District Officer (Co-ord) for District Coordination Officer Lahore."
(2) "It has been reported that your magazine is violating the provisions of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance 2002.
' In view of the above, the declaration of Urdu/Daily "Islam", Lahore has been notified as cancelled under the provisions of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance, 2002.
(Sd.)
District Officer (Co-ord)
For District Coordination Officer Lahore."
(3) "It has been reported that your magazine is violating the provisions of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Book Registration Ordinance, 2002.
' In view of the above, the declaration of Urdu/English/Arabic/monthly "Voice of Islam", Lahore has been notified as cancelled under the provisions of Press, Newspapers, News Agencies, and Book Registration Ordinance, 2002.
(Sd.)
District Officer (Co-ord)
For District Coordination Officer Lahore."
4. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset has objected that the said cancellation of the declaration has been made without issuance of any show-cause notice, hence, the appellants were condemned unheard while, on the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,2/DCO, when confronted with the above referred objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the concerned authority when found violation of the provisions of Ordinance, 2002 by the appellants, competently cancelled the declaration of these publications.
5. I have heard both sides at length and perused the record.
6. Section 19 of the Ordinance 2002, has empowered the DCO to cancel the declaration. The relevant portion of this section is as under:-- "On the application of the Press Registrar either suo motu or based on the information through any person, the DCO empowered to authenticate a declaration. Under this Ordinance, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving he person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an inquiry into the matter and if after considering the cause, if any, shown by such parties and after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that:--
(a) .................
(b) ..................
(c) ............
(d) ...................
7. From plain reading of the above mentioned provisions of law, it is manifestly clear that the Authority is under legal obligation to afford an opportunity to a person for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, hold an inquiry into the matter before proceeding further but it is established on the record that no notice had ever been issued to the appellants by the DCO/respondent No,2. It cannot be disputed that it is a principle of natural justice that no one should be dealt with to his material disadvantage or deprived of his liberty or property without having an opportunity of being heard and making his defence. The rule of justice embodied in the Maxim "audi alteram partem" "No man shall be condemned unheard" is not confined to proceedings before Courts but extends to all proceedings by whomsoever held, which may affect the person or property or other right of the parties concerned in the dispute. As a just decision in such controversies is possible only if the parties are given the opportunity of being heard, there can be as regards the right of hearing, no difference between proceedings which are strictly judicial and those which are in the nature of a judicial proceeding though administrative in form. In this context, reference can be made to case of Chief Commissioner Karachi v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45).
8. In case of University of Dacca through its Vice-Chancellor v. Zakir Ahmed (PLD 1965 SC 90) the Hon'ble Judges of the apex Court have observed that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting "the person or property or other right of the parties concerned". This rule applied even though there may be no positive words in the statute or legal document whereby the power is vested to take such proceedings, for, in such cases this requirement is to be implied into it as the minimum requirement of fairness. The same view had been affirmed in "Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi's case reported as (1994 SCM R 1299), and Mst.Attiyya Bibi Khan's case reported as (2001 SCM R 1161).
9. In view of the above, it is established that the impugned letters, mentioned above, had been issued by the DCO/respondent No,2 without providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellants and producing their defence, which are not sustainable in law, hence, are set aside being passed illegally, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
10. However, this order will not restrict the respondents or other designated functionaries, enjoying the powers in the Ordinance, 2002, for taking action against the publishers, if so justified, in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance, 2002.
11. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed.