' This single order shall dispose of I.C.A. No,2 of 2007 in Writ Petition 6534 of 2006 and I.C.A. No,3 of 2007 in Writ Petition No,6532 of 2006 as in both these appeals, common questions of law and facts are involved and also being the offshoot of the same judgment, impugned herein, whereby the learned single Judge in Chamber allowed both the said constitutional petitions.
2. The brief facts succinctly required for adjudication of the Intra Court appeals are that the respondents filed Writ Petitions Nos.6532 of 2006 and 6534 of 2006 challenging the termination of their Vending Licence for installation of Stall at Railway station, Khanewal vide orders dated 15-9- 2006 and 23-5-2006, respectively, by invoking clause 12(b) of the Vending Licence. The said termination orders were challenged by the respondents on the ground that before terminating the vending licence, the appellant neither served any show-cause notice on them nor obtained any explanation and the whole proceedings were conducted in an ex parte manner and in violation of the principle of natural justice. The respondents also urged that the ground on which their licences had been terminated is not a part of the conditions of Vending Licence. Moreover, they had not been challaned by any competent Court under the Pure Food Ordinance, as such, their licences could not be revoked.
3. The learned Single Judge in Chamber after issuing notice and calling for the comments from the appellants accepted both the above numbered constitutional petitions vide the impugned order, dated 21-12-2006 holding that no doubt the appellants could under clause 12(b) of the Vending Licence cancel the licences but the appellants were obliged at least to issue notices to the respondents pointing out their unsatisfactory working or breach of any clause of agreement and straightaway termination orders could not be passed. It was also declared that any permission in clause in terms and conditions providing for cancellation of the licences forthwith without giving any notice is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but it amounts to condemning a person unheard in view of the law declared by the apex Court in the case reported in Federation of Pakistan v. Public-at-Large PLD 1987 SC 304 providing that issuance of notice and affording opportunity of hearing is to be deemed an integral part of every action. Hence, the learned Single Judge in Chamber held the clause of terms and conditions of the Vending Licence providing the termination without notice as against the principles of natural justice; as such, clause 12(b) of Vending Licence was declared as contrary to the same and the appellants were directed not to act in such-like manner and in any case the action is required to be taken, the same can only be taken after giving notice and providing opportunity of hearing and, accepted the petitions of the respondents by declaring the termination of the contracts of the respondents as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and ordered immediate restoration of the licences of the respondents.
4. It is urged on behalf of the appellants that licences were terminated according to clause 12(b) of the terms and conditions of the Vending Licence as the respondents were selling substandard food items and the respondents had misstated the facts by tampering the laboratory report, dated 11- 11-2006 as 18-11-2006 and also fraudulently concealed the fact regarding the latest two other laboratory reports dated 27-11-2006 which were concluded against the respondents as substandard food items were being sold by them. The learned single Judge in Chamber did not take into consideration that the respondents had approached the Court with unclean hands by way of cheating, misstatement and concealment. The substandard food items being sold by the respondents had been declared as harmful to the health of the passengers which was a sheer violation of the Pure Food Rules, 1965 as well as the clause 12(b) of the Agreement. This act of the respondents entails their termination, as such, the impugned order be set aside. However, the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments unequivocally conceded that the termination orders dated 15-9-2006 and 23-5-2006 were issued without any service of notice and appellants would, in future, issue such termination orders after serving the notices.
5. We have given anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants but are not inclined to upset the order of the learned single Judge in chamber which has been passed keeping in view the golden principle of settled law that any proposed action must be taken in a lawful manner and not arbitrarily; the principle of justice demands that proper notice should be served. The impugned order in fact, shows a beacon of light for all concerned not to proceed or act in an arbitrary manner. It has also been acknowledged and courageously conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant, that in future the appellant could issue any termination order after due service of notice.
6. A perusal of the impugned order suggests by all means that the same has been passed on a due appreciation of law and facts and no exception with regard thereto can be taken in these appeals which stand dismissed.