' The appellants' suit under section 92, which in fact is under section 93 of the C. P. C. Had been filed with the sanction of the Collector only and not with the sanction of the Provincial Government. Their application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had not been able to make out a prima Jack case. The learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi came to the same finding on the ground that since the sanction of the Provincial Government had not been obtained, the suit under section 93 was not competent. The only question, therefore, is whether the Provincial Government's sanction is also necessary for filing of the suit. Section 93 provides that the powers conferred by sections 91 and 92 on the Advocate-General may be with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, exercised also by the Collector or by such officer as the Provincial Government may appoint in this behalf. The underlined word 'also' makes it clear that the sanction must not be only by the Collector but also by the Provincial Government.
This view taken in Prem Narain v. Ram Charan and others. It was held that "in their Lordships' opinion section 93 provides for two distinct matters ; the appointment of an officer to exercise the powers conferred by sections 91 and 92 on the Advocate-General and the previous sanction of the Local Government to the exercise of such powers : in each case both the appointment and the previous sanction of the Local Government to the exercise of these powers are necessary before the provisions of section 93 can be utilised."
2. The words underlined by me makes it clear that the sanction of the) Provincial Government is not a general sanction authorising the Collect to pass an order under section 93. That sanction should be given in each 1 [More in italics] case. This view was reiterated in Acharya Davendra Prasadji v. Tirathdas There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the appellants had failed to prove that they had a prima fuck case in the absence of sanction from the Provincial Government.
3. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. AIR 1932 PC 51 PLD 1972 Kar. 251