The order impugned in the case, dated 23.4.2003 has been passed by the DCO, Multan, whereby the application of the appellant u/S. 6 of the Press News Papers, News Agencies & Books.
Registration Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance), for the authentication of his declaration for publication of the daily "Pakistan" from Distriction Multan, has been refused, while upon the intimation of the Respondent No, 4, u/S. 8 (2) of the Ordinance ibid, he has been allowed to publish the paper for the said District. Hence this appeal under Section 20 of the Ordinance.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4.9.2002, the appellant moved an application to the DCO Multan u/S. 6 of the Ordinance making the declaration for the publication of a urdu daily newspaper titled "Pakistan" from District Multan and seeking its authentication from the DCO in terms of Section 10 of the Ordinance. It is his case that he already was/is publishing such paper from Islamabad and Karachi. Respondent No, 4, according to the appellant, also moved a similar application on 17.10.2002, but did not pursue it further and no action thereafter was yet taken upon the same, when he addressed a letter dated 1.2.2003, intimating the DCO Multan u/S. 8(2) of the Ordinance, that as he is publishing the said newspaper from Lahore and thus intends to do so from District Multan as well. In the above situation, the DCO sought the opinion from the Ministry of Information, Govt.. of Pakistan and having received some advise/opinion, in this behalf, passed the impugned order, whereby the declaration of the Appellant u/S. 6 was refused and the Respondent No, 4, was allowed to publish the daily "Pakistan' from the Multan District. Hence this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the collective reading of the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Ordinance, enunciates a scheme, as to how a declaration for the purpose of the publication of a newspaper should be made; what shall be the rules and the criteria for the authentication of such a declaration or the refusal thereof; what steps shall follow regarding the change about the language, periodicity or the place of printing of an existing newspaper, if intended to be so changed in the same District; what should be the process, if the change of publication is sought from one District to another in the same Province or outside the Province. In this behalf, he states that if a person intends to publish a newspaper, he has to make a declaration u/S. 6 in the prescribed form to the DCO, of the concerned District, which declaration, shall be considered by the DCO within the parameters of Section 10 and shall be authenticated and decided on the touch stone of the said provision, whereas, Section 8 caters for three different situations, firstly under sub-section (1), if a publisher wants to change the language or the periodicity or place of the publication of an existing paper in the same District, he is obliged to intimate the DCO of the District, but this should be during the continuity of the publication and after Such intimation is give, the printer/publisher can proceed to make the requisite change without filing a fresh declaration or seeking the authentication thereof. In the second and the third eventuality envisaged by sub-sections (2) & (3) regarding the change of publication from one District to another in the same Province or any other District in Pakistan, the publisher should first give-up, abandon and discontinue the publication of the paper in the District, where it is being published and thereafter, can on the intimation, publish the same paper in the other District.
The sole basis of the above arguments is structured upon the expression "is" used in Section 8(1), and "was being' in Section 8 (2) (3). According to the learned counsel, "is" connotes the presentee, whereas "was being" is the past perfect. In the very words of the learned counsel, "If the publisher has quitted and abandoned the publication of the paper in the District, in which he has the authentication of the declaration, he can inform the DCO of the District, from-where he proposes to publish and without filing a fresh declaration or seeking authentication of the same as required u/S. 10, he can simply upon providing the information under Sections 2 and 3 of Section 8, automatically is entitled to publish the newspaper in the latter District. But if the publishing of the paper is in existence in the District, for which the declaration was authenticated, he has to file a fresh declaration under Section 6 for the publication of the paper in any other District of the same Province or the country, as the case may be".
4. According' to the learned counsel, as the Respondent No, 4, has not discontinued the publication of the paper in Lahore District, therefore, he was required to file a fresh declaration for Multan District and as this has not been done, the impugned order permitting him to publish the paper from Multan, is illegal and without jurisdiction.
5. Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the Respondent No, 4, on the other hand, has submitted that the construction of Section 8 should not be founded upon literal or grammatical meaning of the words used therein, rather the provision should be constructed on the basis of the rules of rationality, reasonableness, pursuant to the purpose and the object of the law and to avoid absurdity. It should also be interpreted in the light of the Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the preamble of the Ordinance. Accordingly, if a person once has filed the declaration in any District of the country, which has been authenticated by the DCO, he can publish the same newspaper in any other District by only giving an intimation of the same to the DCO of other District and no new declaration is required. In support of his submission about the rules, which should be applied in construing the Section 8(2) & (3), he has also relied upon the judgments reported as Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore vs. S. Mubarak Ahmed (PLD 1972 Lahore 787), Sardar Muhammad vs. Mst. Nasima Bibi and others (PLD 1966 Lahore 703), Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs. Pakistan Tabacco Company Employees Union Dacca. Etc. (PLD 1961 SC 403), and Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan vs. The Controller of Estate Duty, etc. (PLD 1961 SC 119).
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Undoubtedly, the freedom of the press is a scared fundamental right conferred upon the citizens of the Pakistan, as enshrined by Article 19 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is pursuant to such a right and to ensure its true application, that the "Ordinance" has been promulgated, the preamble whereof has made the purpose and the object of the law in the above direction very conspicuous and clear. Thus, from the collective reading of Sections 6, 8 and 10 of the Ordinance in the light of Article 19 and the preamble, it is manifest that the procedure to enable the publication of the newspaper has been simplified and facilitated under the law. It is with the purpose to put a check upon and to curtail the discretion of the DCO in refusing the authentication of the declaration that certain unambiguous limits have been imposed upon his power and the refusal is only restricted to the parameters of Section 10. Therefore, I find myself in agreement with Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the respondent that the interpretation of the various provisions of the Ordinance, including Section 8 (2 & 3), should be made keeping in view the principles that where the language of a statute admitting of two or more constructions, the interpretation, which promotes and advances the object of the law, should be followed, rather the one, which leads to absurdity and unreasonableness; which should, in all the situations, must be avoided. The purpose of the Ordinance, is undoubtedly clear, which is to ensure the freedom of the expression and the press, and as stated above, the procedure for the publication has been facilitated and simplified, therefore, Section 8 should be read in the light of the object and the spirit of the law highlighted above, rather going by the rules of Grammar.
7. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that because of the expression "is" used in sub-section (1) and "was being" in sub-sections (2) and (3), therefore, the publisher in the later two cases, has to first give up and abandon the publication and then should give an intimation to the DCO; but without seeking the authentication can publish the same paper, to my mind shall be an absurd interpretation of these provisions; the word "is" as defined in various dictionaries particularly the Black Law Dictionary 6th Edition, at page 830 also means "has been"; obviously "has been" is a past tense and is an interchangeable term with the word "was being" therefore, only for the reason that "is" and "was being" are used by the Draftsman in two different clauses of the section, does not mean that different interpretation should also be made.
In the light of above, I find that as the Respondent No, 4 was publishing the newspaper in Lahore; his declaration has been duly authenticated by the DCO, thus he simply was required to provide an intimation within the terms of Section 8(2) and therefore, no new declaration was needed to be filed by him. Resultantly, I find that the order passed by the forum below is in accordance with law, which does not call for interference. This appeal thus has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed.