' NAIMUDDIN, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution briefly stated are :
2. Petitioner is carrying on business of travelling agency in Karachi. But is not recognised by the International Air Transport Association. On 13.2-1975, it applied to the State Bank of Pakistan under paragraph 3 of the Instructions contained in Chapter XVII of the State Bank Manual for permission to submit cases of P. P. 2, and T. I. Forms etc., for travelling abroad for various purposes and obtaining exchange on behalf of its clients and enclosed therewith letters of sponsorship from Messrs Lufthansa German Airlines, Syrian Arab Airlines and Iraqi Airways.
3. The State Bank of Pakistan, by the letter dated 26-2-1975, granted the permission to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner continued to submit the aferefaid forms till 25-2-1977 when the State Bank of Pakistan informed the petitioner of the withdrawal of the permission with immediate effect.
4. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Constitution petition impugning the notice of withdrawal of the aforesaid permission.
5. We have heard Mr. N. K. Jatoi, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for the respondents.
6. The contention of Mr. Jatoi, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that the impugned action by the State Bank of Pakistan is without lawful authority inasmuch as it has been taken without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus offends the principle of natural justice. The learned counsel referred to several cases particularly, Haji Hashmatullan and 9 others v. Karachi Municipal Corporation and 3 others (1) which lays down that the principle of audi alteram partem be deemed to be incorporated, in every enactment in the absence of a provision to the contrary.
7. Although the learned Advocate for the respondents admitted that the petitioner was not given any notice or hearing before the impugned action was taken but he contended that the petitioner was not entitled to any hearing as (1) he had no vested right and (2) as no hearing was required in view of the provisions of the instructions under which the permission was granted.
8. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that the principle' of natural justice that no person should be condemned unheard is deemed to be incorporated in every enactment in the absence of a provision to the contrary. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether there is a provision to the contrary in the law under which permission was granted and the Impugned action was taken and the other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents namely, that the petitioner was not entitled to any hearing as he had no vested right, for it is not denied by the respondents that the impugned action was taken without hearing the petitioner.
9. Considering the first submission of the learned Advocate for the respondents namely, the petitioner had no vested right, it would suffice to say that the principle of audi alterarn partem has not only been consistently invoked in cases in which a person was deprived of his property or liberty without hearing him but also in cases where he was dealt with to his material disadvantage without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Application of this principle is not restricted only to cases of violation of vested rights. If any authority is needed reference may be had to The Chief Commissioner of Karachi v. Mrs. Dina Sorab Katrak (2), Farii Sons Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (3) and Abdul Rehman v. Collector and Deputp Commissioner, nahawalnogar and others (4). While referring to the above-noted cases it was observed by Hamoodur Rahman, J. (as he then was) in the University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmed (5) at page 103 of the report as follows that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting 'the person or property or other right of the parties concerned'."
10. Taking up the second submission we may at the very outset point out that it is also equally settled that the application of this principle can be excluded by the statute under which the authority acts, and such eau can can be expressed or implied. (See Saiyyed Abul A'la Maudoodi v Government of West Pakistan (6), Mst. Sattan and others v. Group Captain Masroor Hussain (7).
(1) PLD 1971 Kar. 514 (2) PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45
(3) PLD 1961 SC 537 (4) p L D 1964 SC 461
(5) PLD 1965 SC 90 (6) PLD 1964 SC 673
(7) PLD 1962 Lab. 151 ' Therefore, it is necessary to examine the relevant provision of the law under which the permission was granted and subsequently cancelled without hearing the petitioner.
11. Under subsection (3) of section 20 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) the State Bank of Pakistan is authorised to give directions in regard to the making of payments and the doing of other acts by bankers, authorised dealers, travel agents, carriers, stock brokers and other persons who are authorised by the State Bank so do anything in pursuance of this Act in the course of their business, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the Act and any rules, orders or directions made t hereunder.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions, the State Bank has issued the following directions to the travelling agents which are contained in Chapter XVII of its Foreign Exchange Manual : "2. State Bank will entertain applications for travel abroad for various purposes from the following only : i) Applicants themselves.
(ii) Authorised Representatives of airlines and steamship companies, IATA Travel Agencies, and such Non-IATA travel agencies as have been recognised by the State Bank for the purpose (Para. 3 below).
(ill) Authorised Representatives of Authorised Dealers.
(iv) Recruiting agents licensed by the Bureau of Emigration in respect of persons who are recruited through them.
' In no case will applications be entertained by the State Bank from any person other than those mentioned above.
13. Nan-IATA travel agencies are required to submit their applications to the State Bank through their bankers for permission to present travel cases of their clients to the State Bank. These applications should be supported by the following :
(a) Letters from three IATA Airlines sponsoring their request. In case of Non-IATA travel =tries who are general sales agents of an airline a letter from the airline concerned indicating the former's appointment as general sales agent should be produced.
(b) A confidential report from their bankers on their financial standing.
(e) A list showing the names of Directors, Proprietor, Partners etc., of the agency as also their nationality and addresses in Pakistan.
State Bank will, however, in its absolute discretion accord recognition to a Non-IATA travel agent.
Recognition so granted is liable to be withdrawn by the State Bank at any time without assigning any reason."
13-As. Since the petitioner is undisputedly a Non-IkTA travelling agent and it was given permission under the above-referred directions, it is submitted on behalf of the State Bank of Pakistan by its learned counsel that under paragraph 3 of the above directions the State Bank co aid withdraw the permission at any time without assigning any reason which implies that no notice or hearing was necessary or required_ We find force in this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, for it was observed by Taker, L. J. In Russel v. Duke of Norfdlc (1), "the requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt - with, and so forth".
' It was also observed by Homoodur Rehman, J. (as he then was) in Saiyyld Abul A'la Maudoodi and others v. Government of West Pakistan and another (2), at page 772 of the report, "In my view, the nature of the thing to be done, the manner in which it is to be done and the circumstances in which it is to be done are important considerations which must be taken into account in determining whether the above-mentioned principle should be applied in a given case or not". It was further observed by his Lordship : "The first and most important condition that must, in my opinion, be satisfied before this rule can be invoked is that there must be a duty to adjudicate or, at least, something in the nature of the power itself to indicate that the power has to be exercised in accordance with such principles that substantial justice is assured to the person sought to be affected".
' In Sangbad Ltd. And another v. The Deputy Commissioner, Dacca and others (3) it was observed by a Full Bench of Dacca High Court consisting of Salahuddin Ahmed, J. (as he then was), A. M.
Sayam and Abu Muhammad Abdullab, JJ., "the law is now settled that even in the case of an administrative act the essential duty is to secure fairness, and, therefore, the principles of natural justice, namely, issuing a notice of the proposed order to the person going to be aggrieved by it and affording him an opportunity of being heard, apply provided the relevant statute requires the administrative authority concerned to base its decision on an objective determination of facts and does not exclude the application of such principles".
14. In the light of the above observations, when we examine the case of the petitioner we find, that the petitioner was granted the facility of submitting applications on behalf of intending travellers abroad for permission to purchase tickets and obtain foreign exchange, which it could not without the authority of intending travellers in accordance with the law of agency but for the recognition or permission granted under the instructions. Now, if, under the instructions which do not provide for objective determination of facts or any right of appeal or representation, the permission or recognition c could be withdrawn without assigning any reason, we are unable to sec what useful purpose could be served in affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Further, the effect of withdrawal of the permission or recognition is not that now, a person who wishes to travel abroad and needs permissioe for purchase of ticket and foreign exchange, cannot apply or get the same but he cannot act through the petitioner for this purpose unless he arms the petitioner according to law with an authority to act on his behalf which was not necessary so long as the permission was not withdrawn.
15. We may however, mention that the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by rules or directions the right of hearing could not be taken away if it was provided in the Act or be deemed to be incorporated therein. However, it is not realised that the Act does not provide for grant of permission to travel agents to submit applications to buy 0 tickets for travel abroad and for obtaining foreign exchange on behalf of Intending travellers. It is the directions under which the permissinn is
(1) (1949) 1 A E R 109 (2) PLD 1964 SC 673
(3) PLD 1961 Dacca 463 ' granted or recognition made for the aforesaid purposes which directions also provide that permission or recognition could be withdrawn at any time without assigning any reasons.
16. We are therefore, of the opinion that the action of the State Bank of Pakistan is according to law and accordingly disaiiss this petition with costs.