1. ' ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-We have heard Mr. Najeebullah Khan. Mr. Azlz Munshi, Deputy Attorney-General raised preliminary objection that the report of the accident which took place at Taif, Saudi Arabia, is report of enquiry which has been made into the accident by the Government of Saudi Arabia, and that report can be published or any person can be given access to the same only if the Government of Saudi Arabia gives consent to the same. He has relied upon paragraph 6.15 of Annexure '13' to the Chicago Convention of 1944 relating to Civil Aviation. He has produced a photo copy of that paragraph which states as under :- "States shall not circulate, publish or give access to a Final Report or any part thereof, draft reports or any documents obtained during an investigation of an accident or incident, without the express consent of the State which conducted the investigation unless such reports or documents have already been released by that latter State."
2. ' The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have clearly stated in their counter affidavits that no consent has been given by the Government of Saudi Arabia to the publication of the said report.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Naeem, counsel for respondent No, 1, also raised objection that the petitioner has obtained compensation from the respondent No, 1 has passed a receipt for final payment of the sum of Rs, 68,400 in full and final settlement of all claims of whatsoever nature arising out of the death of the said Salim Khan in the above accident. Mr. Muhammad Naeem, therefore, submitted that the petitioner, who is the father of deceased Salim Khan who died in accident in Taif on 26-11- 1979, has already availed all his remedies and has given receipt in full and final settlement of all claims of whatsoever nature, therefore, the present petition whereby he is seeking the publication of the report of the accident enquiry is particularly uncalled for.
4. ' Apart from the objections raised by the two learned counsel for the three respondents we enquired from Mr. Najeebullah Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner to show us under what particular law he is basing his claim for a direction of the nature that he has asked for. The learned counsel referred to sections 4, 5 and 6 of Part XVI of Civil Aviation Rules, 1978 and submitted that he could secure a publication of the report of enquiry conducted into an accident. We have perused section 4 which consists of rule 329. Rule 329 provides that Director-General may authorize, either generally or specially, one or more investigators to conduct an investigation into any matter conducted with any accident or incident occurring in Pakistan territory. This Rule and relevant Rules upto 334 are, therefore, not applicable to the present case because the accident did not take place in Pakistan Territory. Section 5 which contains only one Rule namely rule 335 relates to accident to an aircraft of contains acting States in Pakistan territory and, therefore, obviously this rule is also not relevant for our purposes. Section 6 contains two Rules namely rules 336 and 337 and it provides that when an accident occurs with a registered aircraft outside Pakistan territory and in the territory of a contracting State the Director-General may appoint his official representative or an investigator, or both, to participate in such investigation or enquiry as is conducted by a contracting State. And of course the Federal Government is authorised to appoint an investigator in such matters. The other rule 337 authorises the Director-General to supply information to the contracting State where an enquiry is being held. These two Rules also, therefore, do not help the petitioner in showing that he has right to the publication of the report of the enquiry.
5. ' Mr. Najeebullah Khan thereafter sought the help of rules 338 and 339 which provide that the Director-General may appoint a Board of Accident enquiry to enquire into the causes of the accident where an accident has been investigated under sections 4, 5 and 6 of Part XVI. There is no allegation, however, in the petition that Board of Accident Enquiry was constituted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in this matter, and, therefore, rules 338 to 447 are not relevant for our purposes.
6. It is, therefore, obvious that the petitioner's counsel has not been able to show us what is his right in respect of publication of a report which has been made in Saudi Arabia into an accident which has taken place there, and about which there is a definite clause in Chicago Convention that its contents cannot be published or given access to, without the consent of the State (Government of Saudi Arabia in this case) who made the enquiry into this accident.
7. ' We are very sorry to dismiss this petition but unfortunately we cannot help it because the petitioner has not been able to show us any provision of law by which we can direct the publication of report into accident by which many Pakistani citizens lost their lives. It is admitted that the petitions has not filed any suit for damages in Pakistan in this regard and has accepted Rs, 68,400 in full settlement.
8. ' The petition is, therefore, dismissed.