1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.--The petitioners firm is the owner of a sea--going vessel named s. s. Phoenix, with its Head Office in Piracus in Greece. This vessel stands arrested under the orders of the High Court of Sind in Admiralty Suit No. 105 of 1977 filed by one Captain Yousif Gazi. His firm International Shipping Agency, Kararchi had been appointed as its Agent by the petitioners, but as the said firm was not registered in accordance with law, it was substituted by Pioneer Shipping Agency. The agent booked cargo for shipment on board the vessel in question and had issued bills of lading even before the arrival of the vessel. As the ship could not sail due to various reasons, the petitioners issued a public notice on 15-2-77 inviting the consignees to off-load their cargo. It appears that satisfactory arrangements could not be arrived at between the petitioners and the consignees of the cargo, with the result that the consignees approached the local Martial law Authorities, and on 15-8-1977, the Sub-Martial Law Administrator issued an order permitting the consignees to off-load the cargo. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Zonal Martial Law Administrator, which was rejected on the 26th of September, 1977.
2. The petitioners challenged the orders of the Martial Law Authorities by filing a writ petition in the High Court on the 22nd of October, 1977, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on the 25th of October, 1977. In the meantime the goods were off-loaded on the 24th of October, 1977.
3. It was contended in the High Court that the petitioner No. 1 had instituted a suit in a Court in Greece and obtained a declaration and confirmation of its lien on the cargo on board the vessel at Karachi, and the object of the writ petition was to prevent the consignees from off-loading the cargo so as to obtain satisfaction of the judgment obtained in Greece. These contentions were repelled by the learned Judges of the Division Bench mainly on the ground that the petitioners had failed to implead in the Constitutional Petition the plaintiffs in the Admiralty Suit No. 105 of 1977; and, therefore, proper and necessary parties were not before the Court: and that the petitioners had themselves earlier chosen to ask the shippers to surrender their bills of lading by notifying that the entire cargo had to be off-loaded. The learned Judges have observed that in the circumstances the interest of the shippers of the cargo was in jeopardy, and accordingly the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court could not be allowed to be utilized for settling a civil dispute between the parties.
4. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioner firm had a maritime lien on the goods, which had been placed in jeopardy by the Martial Law Authorities, who had no jurisdiction in law to interfere in this matter. The learned counsel concedes that the cargo in dispute has since been off loaded, and his only anxiety at: this stage is to ensure that the impugned orders do not affect the legal rights of the petitioners.
5. Mr. Zahurul Haq, the learned Advocate-General Sind, appearing for the Martial Law Authorities, has frankly conceded that there was no legal sanction behind the orders made by these authorities, but submits that the authorities had acted in a bona fide manner so as to protect the legitimate interest of the shippers of the cargo, which included a large quantity of rice meant for expt to a friendly country.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that it is clear that the orders n3ade by the Martial Law Authorities apparently had no legal sanction behind them, although they were made in good faith to protect the interest of the shippers of the cargo which included perishable items like rite. It is also clear that the orders of the Authorities have no legal effect din the rights of the parties under the relevant law. As the cargo has already been offloaded, the petitioners do not seek any operative order, but merely a declaration of the correct position in law.
7. As the legal position has been clarified, there is no justification made out for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.