' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--The petitioner, who is running a restaurant in Karachi has received a notice under, section 5 (1) of the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act, 1976, from the Deputy Controller requiring the petitioner to get their restaurant registered and licenced under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner filed objections stating that their restaurant was not covered by, the provisions of the Act. However, the objections were rejected by the Deputy Controller. The petitioner filed an appeal under section 25 of the Act before the Controller. The appeal was dismissed by the Controller by order dated 31-12- 1983 and this was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 7-2-1984 of the Deputy Controller. The petitioner filed an appeal/revision against the order of the Controller before the Joint Secretary Tourism Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. During the pendency of the apeal/revision before the Joint Secretary, another notice was received from the Deputy Controller. The petitioner approached this Court in previous Constitutional petition No,D-233 of 1984, which petition was, however, dismissed by judgment dated 23-9-1989 of this Court on the ground that the appeal/revision of the petitioner was pending before the joint Secretary. On 7-12-1989, the Deputy Controller informed the petitioner that the revision petition filed by the petitioner had been examined at the level of the Joint Secretary who upheld the order of the Controller. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to submit his application for registration of the restaurant failing which the petitioner was threatened with action. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this Constitutional Petition. We have heard Mr. Mirza Adil Beg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nazar Akbar, learned counsel for the respondents. The Deputy Controller, Department of Tourist Services, Government of Pakistan Karachi is also present with record.
2. We had asked Mr. Nazar Akbar, learned counsel for the respondents, whether any record in which order passed by the. Joint Secretary, is available and he informed that only an intimation has been received from the office of the Joint Secretary, Tourist Department that the revision, filed by the petitioner, had been dismissed but there is no order on record available at Karachi. On another question from the Court, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions of the Deputy Controller, submitted that generally no reasons are given in the order passed in revision and only an intimation is received by the office at Karachi that the revision has been dismissed or allowed or disposed off.
3. In our view if a revision or appeal is provided under a statute and such revision or appeal decides matters, relating to rights of private citizens, normally, a hearing should be granted unless the statute or the concerned rules dispense with the granting of a hearing. And secondly, the order passed in revision or appeal should be a speaking order so that the party against whom the order in appeal or revision is passed is made aware of the grounds or reasons for which orders have been passed against him.
4. In the present case we find that neither any hearing has been granted to the petitioner nor any order is available on record giving reasons or grounds for which the appeal/revision, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed.
5. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed in appeal/revision by the Joint Secretary, Tourism Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and remand the case to the Joint Secretary with the direction to decide the revision/appeal afresh after giving notice to the petitioner directly or through Mr. Mirza Adil Beg, Advocate, at 311, Uni Towers, LI Chundrigar Road, Karachi and granting a hearing to the petitioner if he so desires. The appeal/revision should be decided by 154-1991.
6. There will be no order as to costs.