' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---This single judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions No, 1361 of 2009 and 1045 of 2009, having common question of law and facts.
2. Petitioners, through filing these petitions, have called in question the vires of section 5 of Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000; restraint against the respondents to interpret "One dish" differently, to restrict the meanings of "One Dish" arbitrarily and discriminatorily and to interpret the same according to it's dictionary and literal meanings. Direction is also sought to the respondents not to lodge F.I.Rs, for violation of the provisions of Ordinance, 2000, but to take action strictly under section 7 of the Ordinance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that various public notices have been published in the print media by the Government of Punjab, City District Government and Commissioner Lahore Division, under Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful (Expenses)
Ordinance, 2000 as amended under Act, 2006 and such authority has interpreted the term differently in it's own way. Learned counsel added that "one dish" as per public notice published by the Government of the Punjab has been explained as plain rice and one salan/curry with roti, sweet dish and hot or cold drink. Commissioner Lahore Division, in the news release published in "Daily Nawa-e-Waqt" in it's print dated 7-12-2008, interpreted phrase "One Dish" as rice or baryani, roti or naan saalan and sweet dish. Learned counsel submitted that according to Commissioner term "One Dish" cannot be interpreted to bring in it's meanings soft drink, soup or tea. Learned counsel went on to argue that third public notice published through City District Government, reflected that meal, permissible in any marriage function, according to the provisions of Ordinance, 2000, is one saalan, rice, roti and one sweet dish. Learned counsel submitted that three functionaries of the Government, have interpreted the phrase "One Dish" differently which has caused confusion about the permissible meal at the marriage functions. Learned counsel contended that it is the responsibility of the Government to interpret the provisions of law, according to it's plain dictionary meaning and interpreting one phrase differently by different Government Bodies, has created chaos. The respondent be directed to adopt a uniform policy regarding the implementation of the provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel then submitted that cognizance of an offence under the provisions of Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred as Ordinance, 2000), has been provided under section 7 whereby complaint in writing can be filed by an office or agency which the Federal or Provincial Government may notify in the official Gazette. Government of the Punjab vide Notification No,SOV(LG)5-7/2008 dated 5-1- 2006, has notified that a complaint under section 7 can be filed by D.C.O., E. D . 0 (Rev.), D.O.(Rev.), D.D.O (Rev.), A.D.O. (Rev.), Tehsil Municipal Officer, Town Municipal Officer and Secretary Union Council. Learned counsel emphasized that except for these officers, no one else has the power to take an action or cognizance of an offence under Ordinance, 2000 against any person. Learned counsel referred to eight (8) F.I.Rs, iegistered in various Police Stations annexed with these petitions, which reflect that the cases were registered under sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance, by various police officials, who have no authority under law to lodge such F.I.Rs, He added that lodging of F.I.R.
Is not permissible under Ordinance, 2000, while the only permissible action under the Ordinance is filing of a complaint in writing. Learned counsel contended that Government of Punjab has issued Notification No, SO(R)LG-5-7/2007 dated 11-5-2008 and notified a Committee at Provincial level to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the Ordinance. The Notification transpires that Committee will comprise of Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Secretary L.G. & RD, Department Government of Punjab, Secretary Home, Government of Punjab, Secretary I & C, Secretary S&GAD, Government of Punjab and Inspecter-General of Police Punjab. Learned counsel emphasized that the Committee as is reflected from the notification, has been constituted under section 7, while section 7 neither prescribes for monitoring nor for the constitution of Committee for such purpose. The Notification offends the provisions of section 7 and as such, it has no legal value.
Learned counsel added that various Committees were constituted at district level, which also offends the provisions of'the Ordinance, as well.
5. Learned Law Officer, at the very outset, has submitted that various Police officials, who have registered the cases against the alleged offenders, have exercised their authority in excess of their power. Ordinance, 2000 does not provide for registration of case and any action which is permissible under law, is the complaint in writing and that too by the persons who are specifically conferred power in this regard through a notification. He added that respondents will not pursue these F.I.Rs, and the Government has no objection, if these F.I.Rs, are quashed. Learned Law Officer has assured that respondents will proceed in the matter, according to the provisions of section 7 in future. He however, supported the notification issued by the Government and submitted that Committees have been notified in accordance with law and are performing their functions within the legal premises. Learned Law Officer justified interpretation of the phrase "One Dish" with the contention that Government wants to implement "One Dish" strictly and the difference between plain rice or baryani, as pointed out by the petitioners, is hardly of any significance.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
7. Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful. Expenses) Ordinance, 2000, was promulgated by the President of Pakistan on 13-1-2000. Sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance are subject matter of these petitions, which impose restrictions on wasteful expenses.
The meals or other edibles were disallowed to the guests, by the host, celebrating the function of a marriage. The prohibition was extended to clubs, hotels, restaurants, halls, community centers and other such-like places. The hot and cold soft drinks, were only allowed. Subsequently Government of Punjab enacted Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Act, 2003, whereby certain restrictions were imposed but the meal was allowed to be served within the house by the members of the family celebrating the marriage and house guests.
The number of guests was restricted to 300, including hosts while the meal was confined to "One Dish". Governor of Punjab notified Rules vide Notification No,SOV(LG)5-7/2003 dated 25-2-2003, under Act, 2003 i,e, Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Rules, 2003. The vires of the Ordinance, 2000 as well as the provisions of Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Act, 2003 were assailed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Ch. Muhammad Siddique and two others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Division and others"
(PLD 2005 SC 1). The Honourable apex Court observed that Act No, V of 2003 is inconsistent with the Ordinance II of 2000 and as such is void. The Act of 2003, was found by the Honourable apex Court in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and was declared as ultra vires. Resultantly it was struck down. The Honourable apex Court found that Ordinance II of 2000 is the federal law and is thus applicable throughout Pakistan. The guests of a marriage function were directed to be served in terms of sections 4 and 5 of the Ordinance, 2000.
8. The respondents, through. Notification dated 11-5-2008, constituted the Committee at provincial level while the Committees at the districts level were constituted through Notification dated 29-4- 2008. These Committees were constituted to monitor the implementation of the Ordinance, 2000.
The Ordinance 2000, no where provided for the constitution of a committee to monitor implementation of it's provisions. Punjab Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Rules, 2003 notified through Notification dated 25-2-2003, however, provided for the constitution of Committee (Rule 3). Section 11 of the Act, 2003 also speaks of the framing of Rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act. The Rules (ibid) were notified under section 11 of the Act, 2003. The Act has now been declared unconstitutional. The Act of 2003 is not in existence, therefore, .Rules framed thereunder do not hold field. The Committees constituted under law, which has been struck down, are not validly constituted and as such, are performing their functions illegally. Section 7 of the Ordinance, 2000 does not provide for the constitution of any Committee, therefore, no Committee under this enactment can be formed. Section 7 (ibid) empowers an officer or agency appointed by notification in the official gazette to take cognizance of offence under Ordinance, 2000. Various officers have been appointed to take cognizance of offences through Notification No, SOV(LG)5-7/2007 dated 5-1-2006. Thus except for these officers, none else has the power to lodge a complaint or take any action for an offence under Ordinance, 2000.
9. Ordinance II of 2000 has been amended through Marriage Functions Amendment Act, 2006, which was enacted on 18-9-2006, whereby section 4 of Ordinance 2000, was amended and "One Dish" was permitted to be served to guests of marriage function. Section 4 of Ordinance II of 2000 by virtue of amendment, reads:-- ' Sec.4. "Restriction on wasteful expenses.--(1) No person celebrating his or the marriage of any other person serve or allow any one to serve meals or other edibles to persons participating in the marriage in a club, hotel, restaurant, wedding hall, community center or any other place except one dish, which means one salan rice with roti and one sweet dish with hot and cold soft drinks.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to the eating of meals within the house by the members of family celebrating the marriage or the house guests."
10. The perusal of above provisions reflects that one salan, rice with roti and one sweet dish with hot and cold soft drinks, are permissible at a marriage function. The terms `roti', 'rice' and 'salan' are not defined in the Ordinance II of 2000. These terms, therefore, will be interpreted according to their ordinary dictionary meanings. Government of Punjab, City District Government and the Commissioner have assigned different meanings to these terms, therefore, it will be advantageous that these terms should be defined and clarified.
"Roti" according to Feroz-ul-Lughat means 'Nam', `Chepati' or `Phulka' while the terms 'Nam' in the said disctionary means `roti', `tanoor ki roti' or `moti roti'. The plain dictionary meanings as appear from Feroz-ul-Lughat does not show distinction between `roti' and 'man' and these terms have been considered as synonymous.
' The corresponding word of `roti' in the English language is `bread', which has been defined in Encyclopedia---food and Beverages down loaded from website Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, as under:- "Bread is a staple food prepared by baking a dough of flour and water. It may be leavened or unleavened. Salt, fat and a leavening agent such as yeast are common ingredients, though breads may contain a range of other ingredients: milk, egg, sugar, spice, fruit (such as raisins), vegetables (such as onion), nuts (such as walnuts), or seeds (such as poppy seeds). Bread is one of the oldest prepared foods dating back to the Neolithic era. The development of leavened bread can probably also be traced to prehistoric times."
' Various types of the bread are explained in detail in the said Encyclopedia. Discussing "breads" across different cultures the bread in South Asia culture is:-- "In Soth Asia (India, Pakistan, etc.), Roti or Chapati, types of flat breads, are commonly used. A variant uses mustard flour rather than white flour. Another variant is Puri, a thin flat bread which is fried rather than baked and puffs up while cooked. Paratha is another variation on Roti. Naan, however, is baked in a Tandoor or clay oven and is rarely prepared at home. White and brown breads are also very common, but not as much as Roti."
"Roti" has separately been defined in the said Encyclopedia as:-- "Roti in general is defined as an unleavened flatbread in Urdu, Hindi, Punjabi, Pashto, Assamese, Indonesian, Malay, Bangali, and Somali languages. In Maharshtra and some parts of Gujarat, poli and bhakri are used to denote the same unleavened South Asian breads.
' From the above referred definitions, the meanings of `Roti' cannot be confined to simple roti prepared in oven. `Roti' will thus mean Naan, Chepati or Roti prepared in oven. Any form of 'Roti' is permissible.
11. The other term used in section 4 (ibid) is "Rice". The legislature in it's wisdom has used the word "rice" in the enactment. The term is general, so as to include in it's meaning every kind of rice without distinction. According to Encyclopedia-Food and Beverages, the terms `rice' has been defined as under:-- "Rice is the seed of the monooot plant Oryza sativa, of the grass family (Poaceae). As a cereal grain, it is the most important staple food for a large part of the world's human population, especially in tropical Latin America, East, South and Southeast Asia. It is the grain with the second highest worldwide production after maize ("corn"0. Since a large portion of maize crops are grown for purposes other than human consumption, rice is probably the most important grain with regards to human nutrition and cleric intake; providing more than one fifth of the calories consumed worldwide by our species."
' The term 'rice' in the sub-continent is cooked with different varieties. Rice when cooked by boiling or steaming, the water used in this process is absorbed.. This type of rice cooking is called "plain rice". When other items are added like chicken, meat, pease, etc, it is called `Palao'. When tomato, chicken or meat or species are added to it, it is known, as `Baryani'. Since the term 'rice' has been used in the Ordinance, therefore, restricting it's meaning to "plain rice" will be narrowing the scope of the term. The meanings of 'rice' cannot be restricted to "plain rice". Rice of very variety falls within the ambit of the definition of term 'rice'.
12. The term 'salmi' is though not disputed yet it needs it's mention_ 'Salmi' according to Ferozul Lughat means any salty dish including `Daal', meat, etc. ', which canbe used with `roti' for the purpose of meal. The corresponding word of `salmi' in English language is 'Curry'. The term 'Curry has been defined in Encyclopedia-Food and Beverages:-- "Curry is the English description of any of a general variety of specified dishes, best known in Asian cuisine, especially South Asian cuisine. Curry is a generic terms, and although there is no one specific attribute that marks a dish as "curry" some distinctive spices used in many, though certainly not all, curry dishes includes turmeric, red pepper and cumin. The word curry is generally believed to be an anglicized version of the Tamil word kari, which means sauce."
' The Encyclopedia further explains in Chapter of 'Curry' various Pakistani cuisines as under:-- ' Pakistan cuisines "A favourite Pakistan curry is Karahi, which is either mutton or chicken cooked in a dry sauce. Lahori Karachi incorporates garlic, spices and vinegar. Peshawari Karat I is a simple dish made with just meat, salt, tomatoes and coriander.
' Punjabi cuisine ' Punjabi curries are mainly based upon masalas (spice blends), pure desi ghee, with liberal amounts of butter and cream. There are certain dishes that are exclusive to Punjab, such as Maha Di Dal and Saron Da Saag (Sarson Ka Saag).
Sindhi cuisine ' Sindhi cuisine refers to the cuisine of the Sindhi people. The daily food in most Sindhi households consists of wheat-based flat-bread (phulka) and rice accompanied by two dishes, one gravy and one dry.
' Pashtun cuisine ' The cuisine of the Pashtun people in northwestern Pakistan is mostly identical to the cuisine of neighbouring Afghanistan, which is largely based upon cereals like wheat, maize, barely and rice.
Accompanying these staples are dairy products (yogurt, whey), various nuts, native vegetables, and fresh and dried fruits."
' Any one among the above varieties of the 'Curry'/ 'Salan" is permissible. The terms `salan'., `roti' and 'rice' as used in the Ordinance have to be interpreted, as they are commonly used in our meals. Though the liberal meanings will enlarge the scope of these terms, but will certainly rule out the ambiguity which the respondents have created by interpreting these terms differently in their own way.
13. The respondents are not interpreting serving of drinks according to the meanings assigned to them by the enactment itself. It is provided in the enactment that "soft drink" or "hot drink" tea be served to the participants of the marriage functions. In hot drinks, tea and coffee etc., are included while in soft drinks, various variety of juices and other beverages like soda water, Lassi, milk etc, are included. Since the term `and' between hot and cold/soft drinks has been used, therefore, it is wrong to contend that either hot or cold/soft drink is. Permissible in marriage function.
14. Now I will advert to section 5 of the Ordinance, 2000 which imposes restriction qua serving the meals or edibles to the persons participating in marriage ceremony, except hot and cold soft drinks.
' By virtue of Marriage Functions Amendment Act, 2006, Section 4 was amended and host of marriage functions was allowed to serve his guest with one dish (Salan, Roti, Rice and Sweet Dish).
The guests were allowed to be served with one dish irrespective of the place of function whether it is arranged within the house or in hotel, club, marriage hall etc. While amending the provisions of Ordinance II of 2006, the legislature omitted to bring relevant change/amendment, in section 5 of the Ordinance, 2000. Section 4, permits one dish to guests of marriage function even in hotels, restaurants, clubs or wedding halls, while section 5 imposes prohibition. Two provisions namely section 4 and section 5 are in conflict with each other. Both the enactments cannot go side by side as later is repugnant to the former enactment. The later provision (section 5) by virtue of amendment in section 4, vide Act, 2006, stands repealed by doctrine of implied repeal. New law (section 4 as amended), to the extent of repugnancy, repeals the earlier one. While holding so, I am persuaded by the judgment of learned Full Bench of this Court, rendered in the case of "Mrs. Shahida Faisal v: Federation of Pakistan and 3 others" PLD 2000 Lah 508) wherein it has been held:- "It is well-settled that normally courts never impute motive to the Legislature. Furthermore, it is well- settled that a new law, to the extent of repugnancy repeals the earlier one by the doctrine of implied repeal and if a special law is enacted, it overrides the general law. Reference may be made to Statutory Construction by Crawford, page 429:- "It is not uncommon to find one statute treating a subject in general terms and another treating only a statue should be read together and harmonized. This is especially true where the two statutes are in pari materia. In the event of repugnancy, the special statute should prevail, in the absence of a contrary legislative intent, since the specific statute more clearly evidences the legislative intent than the general statute does. And this rule---that a statue relating to a specific subject controls a general statute which includes the specific subject--is not necessarily dependent on the time of the enactment of such statutes, although it may be a vital and important consideration."
' Section 4 as amended, repeals, section 5 to the extent of it's repugnancy with the later provision.
One Dish as amended in section 4, shall also be read in section 5.
15. The act of omission of on the part of respondent in implementing provisions of section 3 of Ordinance, 2000, cannot be ignored. Respondents have constituted various Committees and had also taken various steps and measures to effectively control violations of section 4. Surprisingly not a single step has been taken to prohibit the ostentatious celebrations. Decorating house, building or street by lights and illumination, is prohibited under section 3 of the Ordinance 2000. The places of marriage function, are extravagantly illuminated and decorated with lights, offending the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance. Learned Law Officer, failed to quote a single instance, wherein an action against the offender under section 3 has been taken. Respondent No,3 is, therefore, directed to seek implementation of the provisions of Ordinance II of 2000, including section 3, in it's letter and spirit, through notified officer or through the agency, so notified.
16. The cognizance of an offence under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Ordinance, 2000 can be taken on the complaint in writing by the Committee or the Authorities mentioned in section 7. None else except for the persons mentioned in section 7 can lodge a complaint. The Ordinance, 2000 has prescribed a particular form and mode for taking cognizance of the offences under sections 3, 4 and 5. Criminal cases were registered by the police in neglect of section 9 of the Ordinance, 2000.
Since learned Law Officer has conceded that the impugned action of lodging of F.I.Rs, was without any lawful authority, therefore, I am not inclined to further dilate upon it.
17. For the foregoing, section 5 to the extent of it's repugnancy with section 4 (as amended) is struck down by invoking the doctrine of implied repeal. The cognizance of an offence under the Ordinance, 2000 shall only be initiated on a complaint in writing made by the Committee or the Authorities mentioned in section 7, in the prescribed manner. Respondent No,5, as has been undertaken by learned Law Officer, will proceed in these F.I.Rs,, according to the provisions of section 157(1)(b) and will finalize the matter expeditiously.
18. Disposed of with above directions.