' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The necessary facts givingrise to this appeal are that the appellant is. The Chief Editor of weekly newspaper `Mahmood Nama', Hafizabad. On 20-7-2004 respondent No,8 had statedly filed a complaint before the Registrar Cooperative Societies (respondent No,3 herein) alleging that Jamshed Abbas Thaheem (respondent No,9 herein) had obtained some loans in the names of some. Cooperative Societies in his capacity as their Director but he had subsequently defaulted in repayment of such loans. On the basis of that complaint an Inspector Cooperatives had statedly submitted a report on 8-9-2004 confirming the allegations contained in the said complaint. Respondents Nos. 5 to 7 had also allegedly filed a complaint before the State Bank of Pakistan on 3-9-2004 claiming therein that respondent No,9 had committed default to the tune of Rs,42,00,000 in repayment of some loans. It appears that on the basis of such complaints against respondent No,9 an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hafizabad (respondent No,4 herein) and then a. Report was submitted by respondent No,4 in that regard on 13-9-2004. On 22-10-2004 the Daily Nawa-e-Haq, Lahore published a news item based upon the said report submitted by respondent No,4 and highlighted the default allegedly committed by respondent No,9. In, the weekly issue for October, 20-27, 2004 even the appellant's weekly newspaper, i,e, Mahmood Nama, Hafizabad carried a similar news item highlighting through a banner headline the alleged default committed by respondent No,9.
Subsequently a similar news item regarding the same matter was again published in the appellant's newspaper in its issue for October, 28 to November 10, 2004 and the allegations against respondent No,9 were again highlighted. Agitated by such news items being published in the appellant's weekly newspaper respondent No,9 submitted an application before the 'District Nazim, Hafizabad (respondent No,2, herein) on 26-10-2004 seeking cancellation of the declaration of the appellant's weekly newspaper and asking for taking of legal action against the appellant. It appears that the said application submitted by respondent No,9 was later on forwarded by the District Nazim, Hafizabad to the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad (respondent No,1 herein). On 4-11-2004 respondent No,1 issued a show-cause notice to the appellant requiring him to explain as to why the Declaration of his weekly newspaper may not be cancelled. The appellant submitted a reply to the said notice and maintained in his reply that the news items relating to respondent No,9 published in his weekly newspaper were based upon an official report submitted by respondent No,4 on 13-9-2004 and also upon an earlier report submitted by the Inspector Cooperatives on 8- 9-2004. With the said reply the appellant appended photocopies of both the said reports prepared by the relevant officers of the Cooperatives Department. It may be pertinent to mention here that in his reply the appellant clearly offered to publish in his weekly newspaper any denial or explanation which respondent No,9 wished to get published. After receipt of the appellant's reply the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad appointed Chaudhry Muhammad Shamim. Jehangeer, Executive District Officer (Revenue),Hafizabad as an Enquiry Officer. On 10-2-2005 the said Enquiry Officer submitted his Enquiry Report before the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad and recommended taking of appropriate legal actions against the appellant and his weekly newspaper. After receipt of that Enquiry Report the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant which he availed on 10-3-2005. Finally vide order dated 28-3- 2005 the District Coordination Officer Hafizabad cancelled the Declaration of the appellant's weekly newspaper Mahmood Nama with immediate effect. The said order passed by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad has been assailed by the appellant before this Court through the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and respondent No,8 in person and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has pointed out that respondent No,9 had been apprised by him of today's date of hearing but he has opted not to appear before this Court either in person or through a learned counsel. Respondents Nos.5 to 7 have already been deleted from the array of the respondents to this appeal vide order dated 27- 10-2005. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by respondent No,1 from various angles to be discussed in the following paragraphs whereas the learned Assistant Advocate-General has defended the impugned order. Respondent No, 8 has maintained that he had never submitted an complaint before respondent No,3 alleging any default committed by respondent no.9 towards repayment of loans.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for respondents Nos.1 to 4' and respondent No,8 in person and after going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been noticed by me that the entire proceedings conducted by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad in the matter were without lawful authority and coram non judice. According to the provisions of subsection (1) of section 19 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002 a declaration of a newspaper can be cancelled by a District Coordination Officer "On the application of the Press Registrar either suo motu or based on the information through any person". According to clause
(m) of section 2 of the said Ordinance a 'Press Registrar' means "the Registrar of Newspapers for Pakistan appointed by the Federal Government under section 39 and includes any other person appointed by the Federal Government to perform all or any of the functions of the Press Registrar".
It is not disputed before me that in the case in hand no application whatsoever had been submitted against the appellant or his weekly newspaper by the 'Press Registrar'. It is also not denied that no application had been submitted in this case by any body, including respondent No,9, directly before the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad for taking any action against the appellant or his weekly newspaper. The facts of this case mentioned above clearly establish that respondent No,9 had submitted his application against the appellant before the District Nazim, Hafizabad and according to the impugned order dated 28-3-2005 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad itself it was the District Nazim, Hafizabad who had forwarded respondent No,9's application to the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad whereafter the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad had commenced the proceedings against the appellant by issuing a show-cause notice to him. It is, thus, evident that the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad had assumed jurisdiction in the matter on the basis of an incompetent application and, resultantly, the entire superstructure built upon such illegal assumption of jurisdiction has to crumble to the ground as without lawful authority and coram non judice.
4. The appellant has all along been maintaining that the relevant news items published in his weekly newspaper were based upon nothing but the report dated 8-9-2004 submitted by the Inspector Cooperatives and the report dated 13-9-2004 submitted by respondent No,4 who was the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hafizabad and that publication of a news item on the basis of such official reports prepared by functionaries of the relevant department of the Government did not offend against the letter or spirit of the Ordinance of 2002. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has, however, maintained that the appellant was never possessed of a certified copy of any such report and, thus, he had never been able to substantiate as to whether such reports were actually in existence or not. A Superintendent of the Office of District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad is in attendance before this Court today along with the relevant record and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General I have gone through the said record. That record, particularly the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted on 10-2-2005, clearly establishes the existence of a report submitted by respondent No,4 on 13-9-2004 before the District Officer Cooperatives, Hafizabad concluding therein that commission of default in repayment of loans by respondent No,9 had been established. It is, thus, quite evident that the relevant news items published by the appellant in his weekly newspaper regarding default committed by respondent No,9 in repayment of loans were not figments of the appellant's own imagination but the same were based upon the official record itself. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has pointed that subsequently respondent No,4 had been proceeded against departmentally for preparation of a false and motivated report but he concedes that at the time of publication of the relevant news items in the appellant's weekly newspaper the report submitted by respondent No,4 was still intact and was very much a part of the official record. If that be so then blameworthiness of the appellant for publishing some news items on the basis of such official record has appeared to me to be quite doubtful. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has gone on to maintain that the relevant news items had been published by the appellant in his weekly newspaper only to blackmail respondent No,9 and to draw political capital out \ of the same for the benefit of political adversaries of respondent No,9.
However, upon my searching queries the learned Assistant Advocate-General has conceded that there is no independent or concrete material available on the record to establish any such malicious motivation on the part of the appellant. In this state of the record the Enquiry Officer and the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad have been found by me to be unjustified in imputing something to the appellant for which there was no physical data or material available on the record. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the impugned order dated 28-3-2005 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad have, thus, been found by me to be nothing but conjectural in this regard.
5. Apart from what has been observed above I have found the impugned order dated 28-3-2005 passed by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad to be an order which cannot be accepted as a speaking order. A bare perusal of the said order shows that the District Coordination Officer had recoded no reason or finding of his own in that order and had not alluded to any particular material or evidence becoming available on the record against the appellant and he had simply recorded his conclusion by referring to the findings recorded and the recommendation made by the Enquiry Officer. Freedom of the press is a Fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and such a Fundamental Right of the appellant could not be snatched away from the appellant by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad in such a slipshod manner which can hardly withstand any judicial scrutiny.
6. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Coordination Officer, Hafizabad on 28-3-2005 is set aside. As a result of setting aside of the said order the Declaration of the appellant's weekly newspaper Mahmood Nama stands restored.