' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Messrs Zahid Printing Press Ltd. Situate at Hyderabad, which own a press and also its keeper. This press was sealed by the Sind Government on 11-8-1972 which was challenged in Constitutional Petition No, 417 of 1972. In that petition the Government took up the Position that they had locked the press only for the safety of its owner and not sealed it. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. On 3-5-1975, the petitioner was arrested for contravention of rules 42 and 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules for having printed an objectionable pamphlet. On 6-5-1975, the petitioner was while in detention served with an order made under clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 6 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 prohibiting the use of the said press for a period of 60 days. This order became subject-matter of challenge in Constitutional Petition No, 505 of 1975. On 6-6-1975, the Court ordered that the press be unsealed for the impugned order merely prohibited the use of the press. The petitioner complained that the press had not been unsealed and the Court on 11-6-1975 allowed him to break-open the lock. On 2- 7-1975, the impugned order dated 6-5-1975 was revoked. On 8-7-1975, the aforesaid Petition No, 505 of 1975 was withdrawn as it has become infructuo us.
2. While the aforesaid petition was pending the Sind Government vide its Notification dated 17th June, 1975 published in the Gazette dated 23rd June, 1975 appointed a Commission under section 35 of the West Pakistan Press & Publications Ordinance, 1963, for the purpose of enquiring into the affairs of certain presses" which had been prohibited to use their printing presses" and in the list annexed to this Notification appears the name of the petitioner's press. The Commission by its order dated 2nd July, 1975 made what appears to be an interim order taking over the management of petitioner's press and for this purpose appointed an administrator to take over the possession of the press with all its documents and record. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present petition and on 10-7-1975 obtained an interim stay. During the pendency of this petition came another order made under subsection (9) of section 35 of the said Ordinance dated 17th June, 1976 annulling the declaration of the press and its forfeiture to the Government and directing the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate, City Hyderabad to take over the control of the press. This order recites that a Commission was constituted by the Government under notification dated 17th June, 1975 and an adverse report has been submitted by the Commission on 16th October, 1975 recommending annulment of the petitioner's declaration and forfeiture of his press, which recommendation found favour of the Government. In pursuance of this order the press of the petitioner was taken over while the petitioner was in jail standing trial under rules 42 and 49 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules which case the Government ultimately withdrew.
3. This petition challenged the interim order dated 2-7-1975 made the Commission and by a separate application the final order dated 6-1976 made by the Government accepting the recommendation made the Commission, during the pendency of this petition. In so far as ure of petitioner's press is concerned, Mr. Z. U. Ahmed, the learned for the petitioner stated that during the pendency of this petition, ernment agreed to restore its possession but the petitioner was ed to accept the possession without first making its inventory and the Government agreeing to supply to the petitioner a copy of the inventory prepared when the press was taken over following the order date 17th June, 1976, if such a copy is available. We are surprised that this reasonable request was not acceded to by the Government. Be that as it may we will have to examine the legality of the proceedings before the Commission for it resulted not only in forfeiture of the petitioner's press but also in annulment of its press declaration. Now the Commission was appointed under the notification expressly for enquiring into the presses, the use of which had been prohibited by the Government. The use of the petitioner's press was no doubt prohibited on the date on which the Commission was appointed. The Commission, therefore, prima facie had the jurisdiction to commence an enquiry against the petitioner's press. However, the prohibition order was revoked on 2-7-1975 and it must, therefore, follow that with the revocation came to an end the Commission's power to either enquire into the petitioner's press or to make any order in relation thereto. It may be noticed that under section 35 of the said Ordinance, the Commission is empowered to enquire into such presses as are designated by the Government. The Government designated presses which were prohibited. In other words enquiry was to be held in relation B to prohibited presses and once the prohibition disappeared the Commission constituted under notification dated 17-6-1975 ceased to have any power to make any order if the named press ceased to be a prohibited press. In this view of the matter only the interim order dated 2-7-1975 cannot be sustained in law but even the final order dated 17th June, 1976. These orders are, therefore without jurisdiction with the result that the annulment of the petitioner's press declaration is also of no legal effect and so also the taking over of the petitioner's press. As a consequence it will follow that the Government shall band over the press to the petitioner after making an inventory of the goods lying therein and the Government will also furnish to the petitioner, if available, a copy of the inventory prepared when the press was taken over under the impugned order dated 17th June, 1976. The petitioner will also be entitled to costs.
4. Before parting we may mention that the only objection raised by the learned Advocate-General in defence of the petition was that the petitioner did not amend this petition to enable him to challenge the order dated 17-6-1976. This challenge is contained in a Miscellaneous Application being M. A. No, 1155 of 1976, and though we may agree that the petitioner ought to have amended the petition, the objection at best is of technical ' nature not resulting in any prejudice to the respondents and we are, therefore, not inclined to non suit the petitioner for this omission.