1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs,40,00,000. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that since 1977 the plaintiff was carrying on business of export of emigrant labour to the Middle East. The plaintiff's licence was renewed from time to time and on 29-3-1979 with the promulgation of Federal Ordinance XVIII of 1979. The plaintiff in April 19, 1979 made a complaint about the working of the defendant No,3, which annoyed him and the plaintiff was compelled to withdraw the said complaint and a fictitious complaint was manoeuvred against the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff had charged excessive sum from emigrant labour. The show-cause-notice was served on the plaintiff on 5-5-1979, which was replied. The licence of the plaintiff was suspended on 23-7-1979 the second show-cause-notice was issued on 28-7-1979. The defendant No,1 cancelled the licence on 18-8-1979. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the defendant No,1, which was turned down and the plaintiff filed a Review Petition on 13-11-1979, but the same was not accepted. The plaintiff has filed Writ Petition bearing No,414 of 1991 before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi and the petition was allowed and the defendant No,2 was directed to renew the licence of the plaintiff forthwith. It was stated in the plaint that the licence remained cancelled for 30 months and the plaintiff's character for recruitment was damaged and the High Court restored the licence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not in a position to start his business for the next 10 months. It was further stated that the plaintiff sent 244 persons abroad within eight (8) months of the year, 1979 and also earned commission of Rs,2,12,706 and further the plaintiff was having a confirmed fresh demand of 183 persons in hand when the plaintiff's licence was cancelled by the defendants. It was pleaded in the plaint that due to illegal and unlawful orders of the defendants the plaintiff not only suffered his reputation within the country and abroad, but also suffered losses from 18-8-1979 for the next 40 months during which the licence of the plaintiff remained suspended from 18-7-1979 to 14-1-1982. The plaintiff claimed that he was sending approximately 30 persons per month when his licence was cancelled and was earning Rs,1450 per person and plus further sum of Rs,500 from the employer as commission and if the licence of the plaintiff was not cancelled he would have sent approximately 1,200 persons abroad and would have earned a sum of Rs,23,40,000. The plaintiff also claimed that he has suffered losses of 183 persons, for which, a confirmed demand was in his hand, when his licence was cancelled and on this account plaintiff has assessed his losses at Rs,4,20,000 and also paid costs of litigation to the tune of Rs,40,000 and special damages to the tune of Rs,12,00,000. The plaintiff has also claimed to have issued notice under section 80 of the C.P.C.
2. ' The notice was served and the written-statement has been filed by the defendant No,3 for self and on behalf of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as well. In the written-statement preliminary objections were taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit. It was also pleaded in the written-statement that no cause of action has been accrued to the plaintiff and that the suit is barred under section 25 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.In the written-statement it was not disputed that the licence of the plaintiff was renewed till 31-12-1979 and that the plaintiff conducted business of 92 persons in 1977 and 39 persons in 1978. It was also not disputed that on promulgation of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 effective from 23-3-1979 the licence was issued for the year 1979. It is denied in the written-statement that the plaintiff was compelled to withdraw the complaint. Issuance of show-cause-notice dated 5-5-1979 was not denied. It was further stated in the written-statement that the licence was cancelled after giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and filing of the appeal and review was also not denied. It was stated that the order dated 14-1-1982 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi was implemented and the licence for the year 1982 was issued. It was further stated in the written-statement that the licence was cancelled for violation of Emigration Laws and the plaintiff himself is responsible for his misdoing and further if the plaintiff failed to get any business during the 1982 and department cannot be blamed. It was further pleaded that the cancellation orders were issued in good faith after due enquiry and no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings, can lie against any person for anything which he has done in good faith or intended to be done in pursuance of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 or rules made thereunder. It was denied in the written-statement that the plaintiff was sending 30 persons abroad per month and it was also denied that the demand of 183 persons was in the hand of plaintiff when his licence was cancelled. The service of notice under section 80 of the C.P.C. Was also denied.
3. ' From the pleadings of the parties consent issues were framed on 5-5-1985, which reads as under:--
(1) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable at law?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages as claimed by him in the suit?
(3) Whether the plaintiff has waived his claims by letter dated 15-11-1983 addressed to the defendant No,3 (Annexure-A to the Written-statement)?
(4) What should the Decree be?
4. ' The plaintiff has examined himself as Exh.5. He has produced the documents from Exh. 5/1 to Exh.5/29 respectively. The plaintiff has also filed his additional affidavit-in-evidence and has produced certified copy of the judgment in C.P. No,414 of 1982 and the copy of the petition.
5. ' On behalf of the defendant Ghulam Haider Khaskheli was examined as Exh.
6. He has produced the documents from Exh.6/1 to Exh.6/5 respectively.
6. ' My findings on the above issues are as under:-- ISSUE NO.1: ' The plaintiff has filed the suit for damages against the defendant No,1 and the officials of defendant No,
1. The officials were sued in their official capacity and not in their individual names.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the licence was cancelled on 18-8-1979 without any cause and justification and the same was declared illegal by the High Court of Sindh in C.P. No,414 of 1981 by order dated 14-1-1982 and by order of the High Court the licence was renewed.
8. He submits that due to illegal action of defendants Nos.2 and 3 the plaintiff could not continue his business for want of licence and had suffered financial losses and the defendants are liable to compensate him.
9. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the defendants submits that in view of section 25 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Ordinance or any rule. He further submits that the licence was cancelled under section 12(3) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the same is protected under law and no suit can be maintained against the Federal Government and its officials. He further submits that even otherwise, the suit against the official designations is not maintainable and that only legal and natural person can be sued as defendants in terms of Order I, Rule 3, C.P.C.
10. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
11. It is an admitted position that the licence was cancelled and the High Court of Sindh has declared that cancellation of licence was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and on the basis of order of High Court licence was restored. The order of the High Court has attained finality and the defendants in presence of order of High Court cannot seek protection under section 25 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The protection available under section 25 is in respect of thing done in good faith and are lawful. The action which was declared illegal cannot be termed as done in good faith and the protection is not available.
12. ' The plaintiff though claimed damages has not sued the officials of defendant No,1 in their natural/individual names, but sued them in their official capacity. In the reported case of Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig v. Abdul Haq Lashari and others (PLD 1994 Karachi 388) a Sindh Bench of this Court held as under:-- "As to the joinder of the defendant No,3 there is another serious defect. The rule is that in suits against Government officers for official acts, if they are intended to be made personally liable, the plaintiff must sue them in their individual or natural names, for public offices are occupied by different persons from time to time. Deviation renders the suit bad and liable to dismissal."
13. From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff has improperly c joined the official defendants in their official capacity and the suit against them is not maintainable.
14. ' The other question is whether the defendant No,1 is liable for the tortious acts of its officers. The plaintiff has not specifically alleged that he has suffered any financial loss due to the conduct of defendant No, 1 . The plaintiff aggrieved due to illegal cancellation of his licence by defendant No,2 in exercise of his powers under section 12(3) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979. There is no allegation in the plaint that the defendant No,1 has gained some thing due to cancellation of the licence or that at any stage the defendant No,1 has owned the illegal acts of defendant No,2. In the reported case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Yaqoob Butt and others (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 627) a full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:-- "The contention of learned counsel for the appellant has however to fail even apart from the above consideration. It is well-settled, and even learned counsel for the appellant is forced to concede that the Government would be liable if---
(i) it takes the benefit of property illegally detained by its servants; or
(ii) it had ratified the tortious act of its servants.
15. ' Neither of these propositions needs the support of elaborate reasoning. If the Government takes the benefit of illegally detained property it cannot be allowed to repudiate its liability and if it ratifies the act of its servant it adopts that act as its own. In fact, at least ordinarily, cases falling under the first class will be cases falling under the second class too, for, when Government takes the benefit of property it ratifies the act of its servant."
16. ' In another reported case of Government of Pakistan v. Sardar Muhammad Ali (PLD 1965 (W.P)
17. Karachi 1) a learned Division Bench of this Court held as under:-- "Thus now it is a well settled rule of law that the Government is not liable in tort for the wrongful acts of its servants or improper conduct of its public servants unless those acts had been done under the orders of the government or had been subsequently adopted or ratified by it."
18. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that the defendant No,1 has ratified the acts of defendants Nos.2 and 3 and have benefited from the illegal cancellation unless this is proved the plaintiff cannot maintain his suit for damages against the defendant No,
1. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable under the law.
19. ISSUE NOS. 2 & 3: ' In view of my findings on Issue No,1 above, the discussion and findings on these issues are not necessary.
20. ISSUE NO.4: In view of my findings on Issue No,1 the suit is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to cost.