RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J. - This judgment is directed to dispose of W.P. No. 2507 of 2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that daily newspaper by the name of DUNIYA, was being published from Islamabad. The publication of the said newspaper had started in 1995. The Assistant Commissioner, Islamabad vide order dated 9.8.2011 declared the declaration issued to the petitioner as null and void. Feeling aggrieved of the above-said order, petitioner filed present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were illegal and void, as the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to order the cancellation of declaration. Furthermore, the order was passed against the petitioner, without providing an opportunity of hearing and as such the petitioner was condemned unheard. The learned counsel also submitted that the order is based on malice as intentionally incorrect address of the petitioner was given. Whereas, actual and correct address of the petitioner as provided in the certificate of registration, was available with the respondents. The impugned orders as such are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case-law, reported as PLD 2006 Lahore 76 and 2009 YLR 1248.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, submitted that the impugned order was approved by the Deputy Commissioner and issued by the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order was legal. It was further submitted that the earlier publisher of the daily newspaper had left Pakistan for the last so many years, without permission of the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the declaration was declared as null and void u/S. 9 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002. It was further submitted that earlier publisher failed to publish the newspaper regularly, so, u/S.11 (3) of PNNABRO, 2002 the declaration was declared as null and void. According to the learned counsel, disputed questions of facts were involved and therefore, writ was not maintainable. In addition to that, the writ is also not maintainable for the reason that declaration was not cancelled rather it was declared null and void. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person and therefore, the writ was liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel referred to the case- law, reported as PLD 1973 Lahore 164, PLD 2011 Supreme Court 44, 1982 SCMR 1135, 1979 SCMR 299, 2011 SCMR 848, 2005 SCMR 534 and 2012 YLR 21.52.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that prior to issuance of the impugned cancellation order, notices dated 9.7.2011 and 19.7.2011 were sent to the petitioner, but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned orders were passed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7. Admitted position in the present- case is that the impugned order dated 9.8.2011 was passed ex- paip and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was actually served with any notice. The record also shows that in the certificate of registration, issued by the Government of Pakistan, Office of th Press Registrar, Islamabad, address of the petitioner was totally different from one mentioned in the impugned order. As such, the established fact is that the petitioner was condemned unheard.
8. The only way to cancel a declaration is to pass an order u/S. 19 of the Press, Newspapers, News Agencies and Books Registration Ordinance, 2002. No order under any other provision can be passed to declare declaration as null and void. If the printer or publisher leaves Pakistan or the newspaper is not published regularly, these can be taken as grounds for cancellation of declaration, but the order for cancellation can be passed only u/S. Lb ibid. For the sake of convenience, Section 19 ibid is reproduced herein below:-- "19. Cancellation of declaration. - (1) On the application of the Press Registrar either suo motu or based on the information through any person, the District Co-ordination Officer empowered to authenticate a declaration under this Ordinance, is of opinion that any declaration made in respect of a newspaper should be cancelled, he may, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, hold an enquiry into the matter and if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such parties and after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard, he is satisfied that:-
(a) the newspaper, in respect of which the declaration has been made is being published in contravention of the provisions of this Ordinance or rules made thereunder; or
(b) the newspaper mentioned in the declaration bears a title which is the same as or similar to, that of any other newspaper published either in the same language or in the country; or
(c) the printer and publisher has ceased to be the printer or publisher of the newspaper mentioned in such declaration; or
(d) the declaration was made on knowingly false representation on the concealment of any material fact or in respect of a periodical work which is not a newspaper; the District Coordination Officer may, by the order, cancel the declaration and shall forward as soon as possible a copy of the order to the person making or subscribing the declaration and also to it Press Registrar.
(2) During the period of sixty days of the cancellation order no person shall be issued a declaration in the name of the same title to any other person."
A bare reading of Section 19 ibid clearly shows that the Press Registrar suo motu or on an information provided by any person can approach the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of declaration. Sub-section (a) of Section 19 ibid, provides that the declaration can be cancelled if the newspaper is being published in contravention of provisions of the Ordinance or the rules made thereunder. It obviously includes Sections 9 and 11 of PNNA BRO, 2002. As such, even if it is presumed that the allegations referred to by the respondents are correct, the proper course was that they should have approached the Press Registrar to move an application to the Deputy Commissioner.
The Deputy Commissioner then was required to issue a notice, hold an inquiry in respect of the allegations and thereafter pass an order u/S. 19 ibid, if he was of the opinion that the newspaper was being published in contravention of Section 19 ibid. There is still another embargo, that within the period of 60 days from the order, no fresh declaration can be issued. Whereas, in the present case, declaration was issued to respondent No. 3, within three days, which is also in contravention of Section 19 of the Ordinance. The impugned order also shows that it was issued by the Assistant Commissioner and the order does not show that the said order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, as it was only signed by the Assistant Commissioner. There is no word regarding approval of the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. Admittedly, the Assistant Commissioner had no authority to order cancellation of declaration and the impugned order on this score too is without jurisdiction. The judgments referred to by learned counsel for the respondent " are distinguishable from the present case, on facts and merits.
9. In view of the afore-mentioned facts, the impugned order dated 9.8.2011 by virtue of which the declaration of daily 'DUNIYA' was declared as null and void, is declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. Any order passed subsequent to the said order including the declaration issued in favour of respondent No. 3, is also declared as null and void. Accordingly the writ petition stands accepted and all the pending CMs also stand disposed of.