' MUNIR A. SHAIKH, J.---This Intra-Court Appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance is directed against the order dated 30-9-1992 passed by the learned single Judge through which W.P.
No, 5884 of 1992 filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal shortly stated are that on 29-3-1990 the appellant was granted catering licence for Dining Car of 7-UP/8 DN Tezgam Train for two rakes for a period of three years subject to the condition of satisfactory performance.
3. According to the appellant without issuance of any notice to him and passing any formal order for the cancellation of his said catering licence, applications were invited by the respondents on 3- 6-1992 for grant of catering licences in respect of all the Trains and in pursuance thereto licences too have been granted to other persons. This act by implication amounted to cancellation of the catering licence of the appellant, therefore, feeling aggrieved he filed W.P. No,5884 of 1992 which has been dismissed through the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection based on the rule laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in I.CA. No,280 of 1992 that the appellant being a licence-holder it was not necessary to hear him before cancellation of the said licence, therefore, his remedy was to file a suit for damages if according to him the impugned act had caused any financial loss to him.
He also argued that proper procedure was not followed by the Railway authorities while granting licence to the appellant, therefore, he khan not be deemed to be a licence-holder in the eye of law.
5. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents no doubt appears to be ingenious but not tenable on close scrutiny of law. Though it has been held consistently by the superior Courts that the grant of licence A itself is not a right but once the same was granted, it created valuable rights in the grantee and the same could not be cancelled and withdrawn without affording him opportunity of hearing. The rule laid down in I.CA. No, 280 of 1992 is not applicable in this case inasmuch as the facts of that case are distinguishable on material aspects as in the said case licence was not granted for a fixed period for it was granted till further ordeRs, With reference to this aspect of the case it was held that failure of the respondents to provide opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the said licence etc. Did not amount to violation of rule of natural justice. In the present case admittedly licence was granted to the appellant for a fixed period of three years, therefore; according to law before the same was withdrawn or cancelled on any ground he was entitled to an opportunity of hearing for which notice should have been issued to him.
6. As regards argument that proper procedure was not followed before the said licence was granted to the appellant suffice it to say that the respondents cannot raise this objection for they had accepted the consideration from the appellant who had been allowed to work under the said licence for about a period of two years and six months, therefore, even if the authorities before grant of licence to him did not follow the formalities, the same did not have adverse effect on the rights of the appellant derivable from the said licence.
7. For the foregoing reasons the act of cancellation/withdrawal of the said licence of the appellant being violative of rule of natural justice though suffers from legal infirmity but no relief can be granted to the appellant for restoration of the said licence as the period for which the same was granted had already expired w,e,f, 28-3-1993. The appellant may seek remedy if any available to him under the law for recovery of damages etc. By filing civil suit if so advised.
8. With the above observations this appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.