Messrs AL IBLAGH LIMITED, LAHORE vs THE COPYRIGHT BOARD, KARACHI And Other

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- A dispute has arisen between the appellant-company, namely, Messrs A1-Iblagh Limited, Lahore (through its Managing Director, Mr. Hafeezur Rehman Ahsan) and respondent No. 3, namely, Syed Haider Farooq Maudoodi (one of the successors-in---interest of Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi) about the copyright in respect of a series of cassettes containing the lectures and sermons delivered by the late Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maudoodi.

2. Mr. Hafeezur Rehman Ahsan (Managing Director of the appellant--/company) says that he is an admirer of the late Maulana and claims not only to have attended all the lectures delivered by the late Maulani but to have tape recorded them at his own initiative and expense From the said pre- recorded tapes of the sermons, he has also complied to books entitled "Kitab-us-Saum" and Fazail-i-Quran" and had go them registered with the respondent No.2 vide Nos. 2359-Copr. Anc 2360-Copr. After the sad demise of Maulana Maudoodi, he formed the appellant-company and on its behalf submitted eleven separate applications to the Registrar of Copyrights, Karachi, for registrar of a series of cassettes entitled "Paigham-e-Quran Cassettes Series' which had also been prepared by him from the afore stated pre-recorder tapes of the sermons by Maulana Maudoodi respecting Tafseer of eleven Surahs of the Holy Quran.

3. The applications for registration were, however, dismissed by the Registrar vide order, dated 31-3- 1982.

4. The appellant-company then preferred an appeal under section 76 of the Copyright Ordinance before the Copyright Board, Karachi, constituted under section 45 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962.

5. The hearings of the appeal, in view of the request of the parties as well as for the convenience of three of the members of the Board, who hailed from Lahore and Rawalpindi, admittedly took place at Lahore. However, the final order, dated 20-12-1982, whereby the appeal was dismissed, was announced at Karachi.

6. The appellant-company, thereupon, challenged the said order of the Copyright Board (respondent No.1) in a Writ Petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of that Court on 23-2-1983 on the ground that the Lahore High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition because "the offices of the Registrar and the Copyright Board are located in Karachi. The record of the case which the petitioner (appellant-company) wants this Court to examine is also in Karachi. I should, therefore, think that the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Deputy Managing Director National Bank of Pakistan v. Ataul Haq PLD 1965 SC 201 applies to this case and for that reason this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition". As for the plea raised by the appellant-- company that the Lahore High Court could entertain the Writ Petition in view of this Court's decision in Asghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 1968 SC 387, the learned Judge held that this decision was distinguishable "on the ground that here the applications for registration were also made at Karachi. Merely because the contesting parties reside at Lahore or some hearings took place at Lahore will not give jurisdiction to this Court to entertain this petition".

7. The appellant-company thereafter filed an Intra-Court Appeal (No.56 of 1983) before a Division Bench in the same High Court which to was dismissed as incompetent vide order, dated 20-3-1983.

8. Hence this appeal by leave of this Court.

9. The question requiring consideration, on which leave was granted by this Court, was "whether the orders of the Registrar Copyrights and those passed on appeal by the Copyright Board, who have their Central Offices at Karachi but exercise jurisdiction over the whole country, cannot be challenged in any other High Court, except the Sind High Court, within whose territorial jurisdiction, their offices are --situate".

10. The Writ Petition filed in the Lahore High Court was under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 read with Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973 and sought a declaration to the effect that the orders of the Registrar Copyrights (respondent No.2), dated 20-12-1982 as also the order in appeal of the Copyrights Board (respondent No.1), dated 31-3-1982 were illegal and passed without lawful authority. A further direction that the said respondents should register the cassettes in question in the name of appellant-company was also sought.

11. According to Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order:--

(1) subject to this Order, a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law,-- (a)on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order (i)directing a person performing, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, of Province or a local authority, to refrain from doing anything he is not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is required by law to do; or (ii)declaring that any at done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

12. The learned Judge in the High Court was of the opinion that as the offices of the Registrar and the Copyright Board were located in Karachi and the record to be examined (or "certified" if the technical term was to be used) was also in Karachi, the rule laid down by this Court in The Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Ataul Haq PLD 1965 SC 201 would be attracted and, therefore, the Sind High Court in whose jurisdiction the records of the respondents were available would alone have jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.

13. We regret that we cannot agree.

14. A perusal of the provisions of the Copyright Act shows that the Copyright Board, as also the Registrar of the Copyrights, exercise jurisdiction throughout Pakistan. According to section 45 of the Copy--rights Act the Central Government shall constitute a Copyright Board and its members shall be:-- (i)Chairman appointed by the Central Government;

(ii) not less than three and not more than five other members appointed by the Central Government after consultation with the representative bodies of authors, publishers, cinematograph industry and any other interest relating to copyright: Provided that adequate representation on the Board shall, as far as possible, be given to the residents o each Province; and (i.e) the Registrar, ex officio."

15. (Underlining is ours)

16. The Board, according to section 46, shall have power to regulate its own procedure, including the fixing of place of its sittings. It can, thus sit in any part of the country and appeals against its decision, it cases not decided by it on appeal, under section 76 of the Ordinance can be preferred to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.

17. Thus, the Board is to be constituted by the Central Government which will exercise jurisdiction in all parts of the country. Its member: will belong, as far as possible, to all the Provinces of the country and its sittings can be held in every part of the country. Again, it. Orders, except those passed by it in its appellate capacity, can be appealed to in the High Court where the appellant resides and carries on his business. Thus, if in this case the impugned order of the Board was not passed in its appellate capacity but in its original capacity, the appellant herein could undoubtedly have filed an appeal before the Lahore High Court, because he admittedly resides and carries on business at Lahore. But it has been found by the High Court that the same appellant cannot approach the Lahore High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction. Such an incongruous conclusion cannot easily be acceded to unless the words of the constitutional provision yielded no other interpretation.

18. We do not think that this is so.

19. While dealing with a somewhat similar situation, this Court was called upon to examine the terms of Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution (which are similar in the relevant regard to those of Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 in Asghar Hussain v. Election Commissioner, Pakistan and others PLD 1968 SC 387. In this case, the East Pakistan High Court had held that the said High Court could not exercise jurisdiction with regard to the decisions of the Election Commission of Pakistan as the said body was not located in nor performed its function in the Province of the East Pakistan and, therefore, the East Pakistan High Court was precluded on account of territorial limitations, from exercising jurisdiction in connection with orders passed by it. While rejecting this contention it was observed by this Court that:-- "The plain meaning of the words: "a person performing in the Province functions in connection with the affairs of the Centre" excludes territorial limitations, such as, that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories." (Underlining is ours)

20. It explained that:- "The Central Ministries as well as many Departments of the Central Governmentare located in Islamabad or at Rawalpindi. Nevertheless they perform functions in both the Provinces in connection with the affairs of the Centre, such as, Defence of Pakistan, External Affairs, Insurance, Copyright, Patent, Design "

21. (Underlining is ours) and found that the orders made or proceedings taken by the said Departments in connection with the affairs of the Central Government but having effect on parties in East Pakistan would be subject to the writ jurisdiction, of the High Court of that Province.

22. The rules laid down in the said case would, we think, b applicable also in the circumstances of this case, The Central Government has set up a Copyright Board for the whole of Pakistan and it performs functions in relation to the affairs of the Federation in all the Provinces. Hence, any order passed by it or proceedings taken by it in relation to any person in any of the four Provinces of Pakistan would give the High Court of the Province, in whose territory the order would affect such a person, jurisdiction to hear the case.

23. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Munir A. Sheikh, who appeared on behalf of the respondent-Copyright Board, supported this interpretation of the constitutional provision in question and submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellant before the Lahore High Court should not have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the said High Court, as it also had jurisdiction to entertain it, concurrently with the Sind High Court.

24. We agree and are of the opinion that both the Lahore High Court as well as the Sind High Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter and both the Courts could have entertained a Writ Petition against the impugned orders in the circumstances of this case. We, therefore, hold that the Lahore High Court has illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction in this case. The case will, therefore, go back to the Lahore High Court for decision of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant before it for decision on merits, in accordance with law.

25. The appeal is allowed but as none of the respondents has opposed it there will be no order as to costs.