' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Through letter, dated 2-6-2005 cancellation of booking of plot in SIE-II Lahore was conveyed to the petitioner, which has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A letter of similar nature and of same date i,e, 2-6-2005 is the subject-matter of W.P. No,5920 of 2006. Due to the identity of the issue involved, both these petitions have been heard together and will stand disposed of through this judgment.
2. The learned counsels have been heard.
3. One of the grounds of challenge to such cancellation is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard and the order is contrary to the principle of natural justice. In the written statement filed by the respondent/corporation, it is averred "that no allotment letter was issued in favor of the petitioner, the question of being heard before issuing the letter, dated 2-6-2005 does not arise." From the response of the respondents it is quite obvious that no notice was given to the petitioner nor heard before issuance of letter, dated 2-6-2005. It needs no reiteration that principle of natural justice audi alteram partem is deemed to be part and parcel of law unless specifically excluded by the statute. A Reference in this context may be made to Commissioner of Income-tax East Pakistan v. Fazlur Rahman (PLD 1964 SC 410) wherein it was observed that "we do not think the mere absence of provision as to notice can override the principle of natural justice that an order affecting the rights of a party cannot be passed without an opportunity of hearingto that party." In Province of East Pakistan and another v. Nur Ahmad and anther (PLD 1964 SC 451), it was held that "no person should be condemned unheard is presumed to be embodied in the statute in absence of any provision to the contrary". In Pakistan and others v. Public At Large and others (PLD 1987 SC 304), the Shariat Appellate Bench had also laid down similar principle. It is thus obvious that before taking any adverse action against a person or his property, he is entitled to a notice and be heard.
In Pakistan Medical Association, Karachi v. Government of Sindh and 5 others (1979 CLC 382), a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court held that "the petitioner ought to have been heard before unilateral cancellation of allotment of plot." In Mirza Munk Hussain v. Additional Deputy Commissioner (G) and others (1985 CLC 1857), cancellation of allotment made without hearing the petitioner was declared as without lawful authority, directing the respondent concerned to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Similar was the view taken in Muhammad Ashraf v. Federal Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities Affairs through the Joint Secretary and 2 others (1987 CLC 2071), Shahyar Textile Mills Limited v. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. (1988 CLC 1948), and Abdul Majeed Khan v. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and 2 others (1990 CLC 796). Since the order sought to be assailed through this petition undisputedly was passed and issued without any notice or hearing the petitioner, the same is not sustainable in law. It was declared as of no legal effect. The respondent corporation may thus afford reasonable opportunity of representation and hearing to the petitioner, and proceed in accordance with law.
' The petition is accepted to the extent mentioned above with no order as to costs.