' This Constitutional petition calls in question the order/letter dated 28-6-1990 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Chairman Zila Council, Sheikhupura, intimating that the proceedings taken by the Zila Council for leasing out the contract for collection of export tax, Zila Council, Sheikhupura for the year 1990-91 for a sum of Rs,3,85,00,000 w.e.f, 1-7-1990 have been quashed by the Secretary Local Government and Rural Development Department, and the resolution passed by the Local Council approving the grant of contract to the petitioner has been suspended in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It was further directed that the Zila Council, Sheikhupura should initiate proceedings leasing out contract afresh after associating respondent No,5, who was the applicant before the Secretary.
2. The relevant facts leading to this petition are that the auction for the right to collect export tax was held by the Zila Council on 21-5-1990 when one Muhammad Khan was the highest bidder having bid Rs,7,06,00,000. However, the contract on the basis of this auction could not materialise as the highest bidder did not perform his obligations with the result that his security was forfeited and reauction was held on 3-6-1990 when the highest bidder's offer was Rs,3,00,00,000 which was, however, not accepted by the Zila Council. The third auction was held on 19-6-1990 in which the highest bidder's offer was Rs,3,35,00,000 which too was not approved by the Zila Council. As the three auctions had proved abortive, it appears, that the Zila Council entered into negotiations with the petitioner and three others during which the petitioner offered a sum of Rs,3,85,00,000 which was accepted by the Zila Council and in its meeting held on 27-6-1990 the grant of contract to the petitioner for the said amount was approved. An agreement was executed between the parties on 27-6-1990 whereafter the petitioner deposited the moneys due under the contract like security, income tax and instalments.
' Subsequently by the impugned order dated 28-6-1990 grant of contract to the petitioner was quashed and the resolution passed by the House was suspended on the ground that respondent No,5 appeared before the Secretary, Local Government and stated that he was wrongly excluded from negotiations although he was willing to acquire the contract for a sum of Rs,6,01,00,000 and that he was willing to deposit Rs, 65,00,000 as security. It was in these circumstances that the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department had passed the impugned order nullifying the contract of the petitioner.
3. Mr. Ali Ahmad Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of being heard before cancellation of the contract was ordered by the Secretary nor was he served with any notice.
' Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate-General fairly conceded that the impugned order is not sustainable while Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for respondent No,5 has opposed this petition.
4. There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner was granted the rights to collect export tax for the period in question and his offer was approved by the Zila Council on 27-6-1990 in pursuance whereof an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Zila Council and the petitioner also deposited the requisite amount. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents and is even otherwise borne out from the record that the impugned order has been passed on a complaint made by respondent No,5 before the Secretary. Unfortunately, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was neither issued any notice nor given any opportunity of being heard. As the offer made by the petitioner had been accepted by the Zila Council and approved in its meeting dated 27-6-1990 in pursuance of which the agreement was also executed conferring rights on him to collect export tax, he could not be denuded of these rights without at least observing minimum requirements of natural justice like notice and hearing.
The proposition, that no order adverse to the interest of a person can be passed without granting him an opportunity of being heard, even though there be no such obligation cast by the statute or the legal instrument, is too well established to need any authority but reference in this connection may be made to Muhammad Mosawwar Khan v. Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala and 2 others PLD 1983 Lah. 102, which is fully applicable to the facts of the present case in which this Court observed that:-- " Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that the collection of octroi was auctioned in favour of the petitioner and an agreement was also executed between the petitioner and the Town Committee, Qila Didar Singh, the learned Deputy Commissioner passed the order without notice to the petitioner and in violation of the principles of natural justice. This ground by itself vitiates the impugned order and the same is liable to be struck down "
' Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Peshawar High Court in Bashir Ahmad Bilour v. Municipal Committee, Peshawar through its Administrator and 3 others PLD 1976 Pesh. 1 which was approved by the Supreme Court in Arsalla Khan v. Bashir Ahmad Bilour and 3 others PLD 1976 SC 581. The impugned order is as such not sustainable on this ground. It is not desirable to deal with the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner lest it may prejudice the case of any of the parties, if proceedings afresh are taken by the Secretary when it will be open to them to take all available pleas.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the impugned order is declared to be without any lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.