1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 13th of June 1972, whereby a petition filed by the present petitioner Ch. Sardar Ali, under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution, challenging the legality of an order made by the District Magistrate of Sialkot on 1-6-72 regarding the establishment of a bus-stand at Pasrur, was dismissed in limine.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is a transport operator and owns a Bus Stand in Pasrur Town, having constructed the same in 1966 after obtaining the necessary permission from the Town Committee of Pasrur. In 1971, efforts were made by the Assistant Commissioner, Pasrur, to shift the Bus Stand outside the town, and for this purpose some land was also acquired in July 1971, but the Town Committee, at its meeting held on the 17th of June 1971, refused to sanction funds for this purpose.
3. Subsequently, the Town Committee was suspended or dissolved and the local Assistant Commissioner was appointed as its Administrator. He revived this proposal and obtained an order from the District Magistrate under Rule 79 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, directing the Town Committee to immediately take measures to shift the Bus Stand from its present place to the new site on the Pasrur-Sialkot Road within a period of ten days from the date of the order.
4. Before the High Court it was contended -
(a) that action under Rule 79 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules could be taken by the Central Government, whose powers could be delegated to the Provincial Government under Rule 213, but these powers could not be further delegated by the Provincial Government to the District Magistrate ;
(b) that the order was passed mala fide, as the Town Com--mittee had, at one of its meetings, passed a resolution that the new Bus Stand should not be constructed ; and
(c) that in any case the District Magistrate could not give -a direction for shifting the Bus Stand outside the Municipal limits of Pasrur.
5. All these contentions were repelled by the High Court. On the first point it was observed that under Article 80 of the 1962--Constitution and Article 102 of the Interim Constitution the executive authority of a Province could be exercised by the Governor either directly or through Officers subordinate to him, and therefore, the Governor was competent to delegate his authority to the District Magistrate for taking action under Rule 79 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. On the second point, the High Court observed that the prior consent of the members of the Town Committee was not a necessary pre-requisite for the validity or the bona fides of the action taken by the District Magistrate. As regards the last contention, the view expressed was that it was for the petitioner whether or not to use the new Bus Stand, irrespective of., its location outside the Municipal limits.
6. Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds :-
(i) that the High Court is in error in thinking that the authority exercised in this case by the District Magistrate was the executive authority of the Governor ; as in fact the authority vested in the Central Government and it could only be delegated once to the Provincial Government but could not be further delegated to the District Magistrate ;
(ii) that Rule 79 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, was not attracted to the case, as the circumstances mentioned in the order for justifying the shifting of the Bus Stand were not present on the date the order was made, and that in any case the situation has radically altered during the subsequent months and there is no longer any emergency of the kind envisaged in the order ;
(iii) that the Town Committee of Pasrur could not be called upon, in law, to establish and operate a Bus Stand situated outside its own territorial jurisdiction ; and
(iv) that in any case a direction having a permanent effect could not be made under the temporary powers conferred on the Central Government and its delegates by the Defence of Pakistan Rules.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this petition.
8. The learned counsel is undoubtedly right in contending that the authority under which the District Magistrate has acted in this case is not an authority derived from the Provincial Govern--ment and, therefore, the question of its delegation would not be covered by Article 80 of the 1962- Constitution or Article 102 of the Interim Constitution. However, the learned counsel has lost sight of the fact that the question of delegation of the powers conferred upon the Central Government by the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971 and the rules framed thereunder, is specifically dealt with in subsections (4) and (5) of section 3 of the Ordinance. Clause (b) of subsection (4) of the said section authorises the Central Government to delegate powers to the Provincial Government, and subsection (5) of the same section contemplates that "A Provincial Government may by order direct that any power or duty which by rules made under subsection (1) is conferred or imposed upon it or which has been directed under subsection (4) to be exercised or discharged by it, shall, in such circumstances and under such conditions, if any as may be specified in the direction, be exercised or discharged by any officer or authority, not being an officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government." It becomes clear from this provision that the Provincial Government could validly delegate its powers to, the District Magistrate. The impugned order itself shows that it was passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the District Magistrate by the Punjab Government Notification No. 9-25-H,SPL-1/71 dated 2-12-1971. We, therefore, hold that the order was not made without jurisdiction.
9. As regards the application of Rule 79, suffice it to say that sub-rules (2) and (4) of the said Rule authorise the Central Government, or its delegates, to require any local authority to take, within such period as may be specified in the order, such measures as are necessary for the protection of persons and property under the control or within the jurisdiction of the local authority from the danger involved on or resulting from an actual or apprehended hostile attack. The District Magistrate has stated in the impugned order that the shifting of the Bus Stand to the Pasrur-Sialkot Road, outside the town, was necessary for the protection of persons and property and for ensuring the due maintenance of vital services of the said Town Committee in the event of an actual or apprehended hostile attack. Judicial notice could be taken of the fact that Sialkot district is one of the districts which has been very adversely affected by the hostilities of December 1971, a large number of villages in the Shakergarh Tehsil of this district having been occupied by the enemy.
10. Pasrur town being near the enemy occupied territory, it was for the District Magistrate to form an opinion whether the shifting of the Bus Stand was necessary for the purposes stated in the Rule. It is not for the Courts to substitute their own opinion for the opinion of the statutory authority in matters of this kind.
11. As regards the next contention regarding the location of the new Bus Stand outside the Municipal limits of Pasrur, it was conceded that the land had already been acquired for this purpose in July 1971, and was now the property of the Town Committee, Pasrur. We have not been shown any provision in the Municipal Administration Ordinance to the effect that a Town Committee cannot administer property situate outside its own limits, but even if there is any such provision, the aggrieved party would be the Town Committee and not the petitioner. It would be for the Town Committee to represent to the District Magistrate or the Government regarding its inability to operate the Bus Stand situated outside its own territorial limits. We are of the view that the order is not rendered invalid on this account, nor has the petitioner any locus standi to raise this objection.
12. As regards the last contention, suffice it to say that it was not raised before the High Court and we are accordingly under no obligation to examine the same. However, it would appear that while the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance and the rules mad thereunder are undoubtedly intended to meet the situations arising in an emergency, yet it would be difficult to lay down the principle that orders made in this behalf should be such as would not have any permanent effect once the emergency is over. Some of the measures taken may, no doubt, be transitory in nature and their effect might disappear once the orders are with-- drawn or the emergency is over, but there could certainly be other orders which though made initially for the purpose of meeting an emergent situation may have a permanent effect. It is clear, however, that the orders could not be declared invalid for the reason that they might leave -a permanent effect even after the emergency is lifted. What is important is that the reason for the proposed action must be related to the, emergency, and this test is satisfied by the impugned order.
13. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no justifica--tion is made out for our interference in the matter. We would, accordingly, dismiss this petition.