JAMIL-UL-HASSAN MAZLOOM Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUJRANWALA

The petitioner is the Chief Editor and Publisher of Urdu Weekly entitled "Nawai Gajranwala". This journal was being printed at "Alaman Printing Press", Lahore. It appears that the keeper of "Alaman Printing Press" Lahore intimated the authorities that Issue No. 5 dated 3-8-1974 of the weekly "Nawai Gujranwala" was not printed at his press but had been got printed by the Publisher from somewhere else. In so far as the place of printing cannot be changed by the Publisher without filing a proper declaration, the contravention complained of was actionable under - section 10 of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance, 1963,,(hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance").

2. On receipt of the information the District Magistrate, Lahore, accordingly issued a show-cause notice to the "Alaman Printing Press," the declared printer, to show cause why its declaration to print the Weekly "Nawai Gujranwala" should not be annulled. The declared printer did not appear before the learned District Magistrate who, therefore, vide his order dated 19-12-1974 annulled the Printer's declaration of the Weekly "Nawai Gujranwala" and forwarded this information to the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, who intimated this fact to the petitioner, vide his endorsement No. S. VII. 1/33/HC, dated 1-1-1974 (sic, presumably 1-1-1975).

3. On becoming cognisant of this development the petitioner submitted an application to the District Magistrate, Lahore, far permission to get his weekly printed at Nami Press, Lahore. The District Magistrate, Lahore, appears to have sought advice with regard to this matter from the Director, Public Relations, and on receipt of the advice passed the following order on this application on 18-1-1975;---

"As advised by the Director, Public Relations, Government of the Punjab (Press Laws Branch), Lahore, `since the declarations of the paper are no longer valid, the question of permission for getting the paper printed at the Nami Press, Lahore, temporarily as applied for by you does not arise'."

4. Aggrieved by the orders dated 19-12-1974 and 18-1-1975, passed by the District Magistrate, Lahore, the petitioner moved this Court by the present, writ petition, which came up for hearing on 5-2-1975. On this date the petition was admitted to regular 'hearing and notice was issued to the Advocate-General for 12-2-1975 to show cause why the impugned order should not be suspended.

5. In the meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, had issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why his publisher's declaration should also not be annulled and why penal action should not be taken against him under section 59 of the aforesaid Ordinance. The petitioner submitted a reply to the effect that he had suffered a stroke of paralysis and was, therefore, unable to attend in person. He further submitted that a writ petition had been filed in this Court and requested that pending the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition further proceedings by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, should be stopped. The learned District Magistrate, Gujran wala, however, did not agree and by his order dated 6-2-1975 found that the publisher had circumvented the provisions of section 10 of the Ordinance. He accordingly notified that the publisher's declaration in respect of 'Nawai Gujranwala' had become null and void and that the publisher was liable to be prosecuted under section 59 of the Ordinance. As this order was passed during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to amend his writ petition so as to challenge this order as well.

6. Section 10 of the Ordinance which has allegedly been violated is, to the extent relevant, in the following terms :-

"If at any time after the making of a declaration under section 7, the newspaper to which the declaration relates is printed or published . . . . at a place, other than the . . . . . place shown in the declaration, the declaration shall become null and void and any further printing and publication of the newspaper shall be unauthorized unless a fresh declaration under section 7 is made . . . . ."

The ground on which action has been taken against the petitioner is that be did not get Issue No 5 dated 3-8-1974 printed at the "Alaman Printing Press" but from some other press. The petitioner, on the other hand, vehemently contends that the aforesaid issue was got printed at the said Press and to establish his contention produced certain documents. His case is that on account of mala fides and ulterior motives, the details of which are given in the petition, a letter was obtained from the "Alaman Printing Press" containing the false information that Issue No. 5 had not been got printed from the said Press and that if the petitioner had been heard by the District Magistrate, Lahore, he would have established beyond doubt that the issue in question had in fact been got printed from the "Alaman Printing Press". He further submits that in so far as the order of the learned District Magistrate, Lahore, was to adversely affect the petitioner, he was entitled to be heard. Further, that the action taken by the District Magistrate, Lahore and also that taken by the District Magistrate; Gujranwala have been taken at the behest of the Director of Public Relations. On all these grounds it is submitted that the orders impugned are contrary to law and without lawful authority.

7. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents and, therefore, the allegations of fact in relation to mala fides, made in the writ petition, in the absence of any rebuttal thereto, must be accepted as correct.

8. Moreover, even otherwise, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The petitioner was the person directly affected by the order of the District Magistrate, Lahore dated 19-12-1974, whereby the Printer's declaration was annulled. Admittedly no notice was given to him nor was be given any opportunity to refute the allegation that he did not get Issue No. 5 printed from the "Alaman Printing Press". It is now established law that any order which is detrimental to the interests of a person can be passed only after the person to be affected thereby has been afforded an opportunity of hearing. See Faridsons Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan PLD1961SC537 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Fazalur Rahman PLD1964SC410 and University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad PLD1965SC90.

9. So far as the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore dated 18-1-1975, referring the change of the Printer's Press from "Alaman Printing Press" to "Nami Press" is concerned, the same is based on the advice of the Director Public Relations that "the declarations of the Printer are no longer valid". The order being founded on the bidding of ant extraneous authority is, on that short ground, unsustainable in law. More over, the basis of the advice that the Printer's declaration was no longer valid, was an assumption which itself was erroneous and not legally sound. Hence the order dated 18-1-1975, is also without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

10. Similarly, the order dated 6-2-1975, passed by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala deserves to be quashed. In para. 2 of the said order, it is observed "the Director, Public Relations advised me to notify the annulment of the declaration of the publisher and also to take penal action under section 59 of the aforesaid Ordinance against him after giving personal beating." Thus the District Magistrate had already been asked to take the action which he ultimately took by his impugned order dated 6-2-1975. It will be noted that the writ petition had already been filed in this Court and notice was issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab to show cause why the impugned order should not be suspended. Unmindful of the said order the District Magistrate rushed to pass the impugned order. This haste was obviously the result of the "advice" of the Director Public Relations, reproduced in para. 2 of the impugned order. Since the `advice' proceeded on an erroneous view of the law and further more the District Magistrate did not independently apply his own mind to the situation, his order cannot be sustained in law. Consequently, the order dated 6-2-1975, passed by the District Magistrate, Gujranwala, is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

11. The upshot is that the orders impugned, the operative orders being the orders dated 19-12-74 and 6-2-1975, are held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that there is no impediment in the way of the petitioner getting his journal printed from the "Alaman Printing Press", Lahore. The writ petition succeeds and is accepted, but as it was not seriously opposed, there shall be no order as to costs.

S. Q. Petition accepted.