Right of hearing

  1. Where the penality is provided — Courts have repeatedly laid down that in those statutes where the right of hearing not provided but provision for penalty is provided, the right of hearing shall be presumed to be included unless specifically excluded. Muhammad Aziz Khan v. United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 17-miles & 6 others 2003 SCR 363 (F)
  2. Furnishing of an opportunity of hearing is a right of the holder of a civil post even if the statute under which he has been appointed does not contain a specific provision. AJ&K University & 6 others v. Muhammad Arif & 3 others 2006 SCR 420 (A)
  3. Notification was issued in 1997 whereby 100 kanals of land was reserved and notified for Girls College — Building was completed in the year 2000 and handed over to Government — After 5 years running the College the Government reduced land measuring 50 kanals — It was enjoined upon the Government at least to hear the appellant before reducing the land because he spent his days and nights and a huge amount for construction of building for the benefit of public at large. Chaudhry Ali Muhammad Chacha v. Azad Government & 4 others 2006 SCR 232 (D)
  4. Acquittal appeal cannot be heard without service upon accused person — Held: Non-bailable warrants issued against respondents shall remain intact for execution — Appeal shall remain pending till accused are served upon or they are brought before the Court. Muhammad Younis v. Yasir Ayub & 2 others 2009 SCR 228 (G)
  5. Hearing is a right of an accused — Without service of notice upon an accused person acquittal appeal cannot be heard and dispsed of. Muhammad Younis v. Yasir Ayub & 2 others 2009 SCR 228 (F) AIR 1944 Cal. 234, AIR 1954 Nag.231 and PLD 1960 W.P. (Pesh) 126 rel.
  6. Right of hearing is presumed to be available in all statutes — The right of appellant having not been decided by the authority — The price of plot still deposited with the authority — Held: Right of appellant is still alive until his claim is rejected by the competent authority through a speaking order. Ch. Muhammad Latif  v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2009 SCR 517 (A)
  7.  —Notification– issued by the competent authority was acted upon and the possession of the land was handed over to the company who has invested a huge amount on the project, therefore, it was enjoined upon the Government/competent authority to provide an opportunity of hearing to the company before rescinding the notification, because right of hearing is essential and nobody can be condemned unheard. M/s Valley Trackers v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2020 SCR 361 (A) 2006 SCR 232
  8. —it is well-settled principle of law that no individual should be condemned unheard. Director General (KIM) & 2 others vs Kh. Khushal Hussain & another 2024 SCR 421(C)
error: Content is protected !!