1. ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C. J.-On the conclusion of the hearing of this Petition, we had passed a short order, dismissing the same with costs. The reasons for such short order follow presently.
2. The Petitioner is a qualified Civil Engineer, and he was working as an Assistant Engineer in an incorporated Company known as "AI Azam Limited." On 17-7-1974, the Karachi Development Authority issued an Engineer's licence to the Petitioner, by virtue whereof he could act as an Architect for purposes of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957. This Licence was valid until 30-6-1975. By four similar successive licences, the Petitioner continued to be a licensed Engineer of the Karachi Development Authority until 30-6-1979.
3. The Building Control Authority Ordinance was promulgated by the Governor of Sind on 3-3-1979.
4. Section 8 of the said Ordinance provided that no person or body of persons could act as architect, engineer, or, surveyor, except with a licence granted by the Authority constituted under the Building Control Ordinance. This provision, however, was subject to a rider that any licence granted under any other law would expire after six months of the coming into force of the Sind Building Control Ordinance. By a notification, dated 18-3-1979, the said Ordinance was brought into force.
5. Under the Sind Building Control Ordinance, an authority had to be constituted in pursuance of section 4 thereof. The said section provided that the Government may appoint "any body corporate, local council or, Govern--ment functionary or organization" to act as an authority for any area. By a notification, dated 31-5-1979, the Government of Sind in exercise of powers conferred by section 4 of the said Ordinance, appointed the Karachi Master Plan and Environmental Control Department as the Authority for the purposes of this Ordinance. Since section 8 of the Ordinance prescribed that a person or body of persons had to obtain a licence from the Authority for acting as Architect, or, Engineer, or, Surveyor, the petitioner made an application to the Master Plan and Environmental Control Department for registration as an Architect/Engineer. Such licence was initially granted in favour of the petitioner on 21-10-1979 for the period ending 31-12-1979.
6. Subsequently, on 2-3-1980, the petitioner obtained another licence from the said Authority, which was to remain valid until 31-12-1980.
7. The petitioner was working as an Engineer on a building complex known as "Mashhadi Square". The said building complex collapsed. The Karachi Building Control Authority then issued a notice to the petitioner on 20-7-1980, stating as follows :- "It has been established by the Enquiry Commissioner or Mashhadi Square Collapse appointed by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C" that you had been negligent in performing your duties as "Engineer" during the construction of the aforesaid building.
8. You are, therefore, required to show cause within seven days, why your licence granted, vide this Office Letter No. SCA!LL-58/79/240 dated 2-3-1980 should not be cancelled and why you should not be prosecuted as per provisions contained in the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979."
9. A reply was made by the Petitioner, wherein it was stated that the collapse was purely accidental due to the shuttering props slipping. It was further averred that the Building Control Ordinance did not provide for cancellation of the licence already granted. Since a point had been raised at the time of argu--ments that the Karachi Master Plan and Environmental Control Department could not have been appointed as the Authority under section 4 of the Ordinance, we feel necessary to state that, in the reply submitted by the Petitioner, the appointment of the Master Plan Department as the Authority had not been challenged. On 26-11-1980, by a letter of 'the Controller of the Karachi Building Control Authority, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. A notice was thereafter given on behalf of the petitioner to the Controller of Buildings, challenging the cancellation of the licence.
10. It seems no reply was received by the petitioner. The petitioner in' these circumstances, filed the present petition.
11. We have heard Mr. Imamally G. Kazi for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sattar G. Shaikh for the Province of Sind and Mr. Mirza Yaqoob Baig for the Karachi Building Control Authority and the Master Plan and Environmental Control Department. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Building Control Authority through Mr. S. M. R. Zaidi-ul-Wasti, who is the Deputy Controller of the Buildings. It is stated that the action of cancellation. Of licence was within the powers of the Building Control Authority, and that, on merits, the licence of the Petitioner has been rightly cancelled. A copy of the Enquiry Report into the colllapse of Mashhadi Square Complex has also been placed on the record, and it is stated in the said Report that the peti--tioner did not ensure quality control in the construction of the project, and therefore he, along with some others, was responsible for the collapse of the building.
12. Mr. Imamalley G. Kazi has raised the following contentions before us :-
(1) That the Building Control Authority was not the properly constituted authority within the meaning of section a of the Building Control Ordinance,
(2) that the Building Control Authority has no power to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner, and
(3) that, in any case, there is no justification underlying such cancel--lation.
13. In regard to the first contention, it must be straightaway stated that the contention defeats itself or, in any case, defeat the rights of the petitioner. Section 8 of the Ordinance provides that no person can act as an Architect, or, inspecting Engineer, except with a licence granted by the Authority. We pointed out to Mr. Kazi that, if his case was that the Master Plan Department could not be appointed as the "Authority" in pursuance of section 4 of the Building Control Ordinance, then the licence, which enables the petitioner to work as an Engineer, would itself be of no value. 1n fact, it would be the end of the argument. To such extent, Mr. Kazi stated that the earlier licences issued in his favour by the Karachi Development Authority would then enable the petitioner to work as an Engineer. Even this contention is absolutely wrong, because the licences issued by the Karachi Development Authority had expired on 30-6-1979. On the other hand, Mr. Kazi -heavily relied on the provisions of section 4 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance to raise an argument that the Karachi Master Plan and Environmental Control Department could not be appointed as the Authority for purposes of the Sind Building Control Ordinance. Section 4 of the said Ordinance reads as follows; "Government may, by notification, appoint any body corporate or council, any department of such body corporate or council, or any Government department or functionary or any organization, to act as Authority for such area as may be specified in the notification."
14. Mr. Kazi stated that the Environmental Control Department was not covered by section 4, so that this Department could not have been appointed the Authority under the Sind Building Control Ordinance. On a plain reading of this section, it would appear that "any organization" could be appointed to act as Authority. Mr. Kazi has, however argued that the words "any organization", have to be read in conjunction with the word "Government", so that only a Government Organization could be appointed as Authority.
15. This interpretation, in our view, is incorrect. The use of the word "any" preceding the word "organization" would seem to indicate that the words "any organization" are independent of the words "Government department or func--tionary". If the Draftsman intended to refer to a Government organization, he should have stated so specifically, and, on the other hand, since any Government functionary could be appointed as the "'authority", the use of the word "organization" could appear to be superfluous, because the words "Govern--ment department or functionary" are all embracing, or would include a Government Organization. In our view, the use of the words "any organiza--tion" clearly refers even to an organization not set up by the Government. The Master Plan and Environmental Department is an organization independent of the Government would be covered by the words "any organization".
16. On the other hand, the last of the licences issued to the Petitioner has also expired. It may also be stated that, in the reply given by the petitioner to the show-cause notice, the status of the Master Plan and Environmental Control Department had not been challenged.
17. The next point raised by Mr. Kazi is that, under the Building Control Ordinance, the Authority has no power to cancel the licence. This argument has not impressed us, because the power to grant licence would necessarily include the power to cancel the same.
18. The last argument of Mr. Kazi was that the cancellation was unjust and improper. We have not been impressed by this argument also, because there is material on the record to indicate that a building, with the construction of which the petitioner was concerned, did collapse, causing enormous harm to the general public as well as to the owners. On the other hand, a show---cause notice had been given to the petitioner, and his reply was not found to be satisfactory. No fault can, therefore, be found with the action that has b-.En taken against the petitioner.
19. For the above reasons, we see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss with costs.