' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J--This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-6-1987 of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court allowing Civil Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent. The relevant facts and the question involved in this appeal are given in leave granting order dated 1-11- 1987 which is reproduced as follows:- "The respondent applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks on 12-6-1983 for registration of its trade mark CHOVETIVE. After examination of the application, a show-cause notice dated 25-1-1984 was issued to the respondent by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, petitioner No.2 herein, calling upon to furnish some information. After receipt of reply to the show-cause notice, the Examiner, by his order dated 19-9-1984, refused to register the trade mark leaving, however, it open to the respondent to file fresh application for registration of the same. This order was challenged by the respondent in appeal before the Sindh High Court, which was allowed as per impugned judgment on the ground that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 19-9-1984 because the Registrar could not be empowered under subsection (2-B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks, Act, 1940 to delegate his quasi-judicial power of dealing with the registration of trade marks, to any officer other than the Deputy Registrar.
(2) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Government had, by notification dated 9-5-1951 in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, authorised the Registrar of Trade Marks to delegate any particular functions of the Registrar to an officer other than the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. According to the learned counsel, the words "any particular functions of the Registrar" appearing in subsection (2-B), were wide enough to cover quasi-judicial powers of dealing with the applications for registration of trade marks by the Examiner. The learned counsel invited our attantion to a specific order passed in this behalf by the Registrar on 19-5-1984 which reads as under:- "Mr. Shamsul Haq to give hearing and decide."
' The learned counsel further invited our attention to a decision of the High Court of West Pakistan Karachi, Bench reported as Haji Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Wahid (PLD 1970 Karachi 537) representing the contrary view.
(3) The above contention raised in the case, requires examination. Besides the conflict of opinion existing in the same High Court also requires resolution.
' Leave is accordingly granted. The appeal will be heard on the present record."
' We have heard at length the arguments of Mr. A. Rauf, A.S.C. On behalf of the appellants. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. They have remained ex parte.
2. The relevant provision in the Trade Marks Act V 1940 is section 4 which reads as under:- "4. The register of trade marks.- -(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established at Karachi a Trade Marks Registry, and a record called the Register of Trade Marks (in this Act referred to as the Register) shall be kept thereat wherein shall be entered all registered trade marks with the names, addresses and descriptions of their proprietors, notifications of assignments and transmissions, the names, addresses and descriptions of registered users, disclaimers, conditions, limitations, and such other matters relating to registered trade marks as may be prescribed, but there shall not be entered in the register any notice of any trust express, implied or constructive, nor shall any such notice be receivable by the Registrar.
(2) Subject to the superintendence and direction of the Federal Government, the register shall be kept under the control and management of an officer appointed by the Federal Government, who shall be called the Registrar of Trade Marks and is in this Act referred as the Registrar.
(2-A) The Federal Government shall appoint one or more Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks to discharge under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar such functions of the Registrar under this Act as he may from time to time authorise them to discharge; and any reference in this Act to the Registrar shall include a reference to any Deputy Registrar when so discharging any such function.
(2-B) The Federal Government may by notification in the Official Gazette authorise the Registrar to delegate any particular functions of the Registrar to officers other than the Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks.
(3) The Register shall at all convenient times be open to the inspection of the public, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed.
(4) There shall be a seal for the Trade Marks Registry."
3. Mr. A. Rauf has placed on record the Notification dated 9-5-1951 of the Ministry of Commerce and Education (Commerce Division) of the Government of Pakistan published in Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary on 18-5-1951. The said Notification is as under:-- "In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (V of 1940), the Central Government is pleased to authorise the Registrar of Trade Marks to delegate any particular functions of the Registrar to an officer other than the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks."
4. It was submitted by Mr. A. Rauf that pursuant to the said Notification of 1951, the Registrar of Trade Marks passed the following order dated 19-5-1984 on the application in question of the respondent: "Mr. Shamshul Haque to give hearing and decide."
' Mr. Shamshul Haque was the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks in the Trade Marks Registry, Government of Pakistan, Karachi (appellant No.2 in this appeal). He took up the application of the respondent for registration of the trade mark and after full hearing the said application was refused by his order dated 19-9-1984. As noted in the Leave Granting Order, the appeal filed by the respondent before the Sindh High Court was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 30-6-1987 on the ground that the word 'functions' in subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act "obviously refers to administrative functions" and not to judicial functions and the Registrar cannot possibly give directions to the officers as to how and in what manner they should decide a particular case. The High Court accordingly held that appellant No.2, the Senior Examiner, had no juristiction to refuse an application and his order dated 19-8-1984 was set aside and it was directed that proceedings for registration may continue according to law.
5. Mr. Abdul Rauf, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that under subsection (2B) of section 4, once the notification was issued by the Central Government on 9th May 1951, the Registrar got vested with authority to delegate any function of the Registrar under the Trade Marks Act to any officer other than the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. It was submitted that on issuance of the aforesaid notification dated 9-5-1951, the Registrar having been authorised, passed a valid order dated 19-5-1984 empowering the Senior Examiner to hear the application for registration filed by the respondent and pass orders as could be done by the. Registrar himself. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in construing the word "functions" to be restricted to administrative functions. Reliance was placed on a reported judgment of another learned Single Judge of the High Court in the case of Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Wahid (PLD 1970 Karachi 537). Mr. Abdul Rauf referred to para. 17 of the reported judgment which is reproduced here:-- "Mr Abdul Latif Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the maintenance of this appeal by contending that an appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act lay only against the decision of the Registrar. It was argued that in the instant case the order in question was passed by an Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the said order was not appealable. It is true that the order in the instant case has been passed by the Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks but a reference to the said order would show that the learned Assistant Registrar passing the order claimed to be authorised to do so under section 4' (2B) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. It will be worthwhile to reproduce subsections (2A) and (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
(2A) The Central Government shall appoint (one) or more Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks to discharge under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar such functions of the Registrar under this Act as he may from time to time authorise them to discharge, and any reference in this Act to the Registrar shall include a reference to any Deputy Registrar when so discharging any such functions.
(2B) The Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette authorise the Registrar to delegate any particular functions of the Registrar to officers other than the Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks."
' It word seem from a perusal of subsection (2B) that the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, authorise the Registrar to delegate any of his functions to officers other than Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks. I, therefore, directed the learned counsel for the appellants to produce a certified copy of the Gazette notification of the Central Government authorising the Registrar of Trade Marks to delegate any of his functions to an officer other than the Deputy Registrars of Trade Marks. In compliance with my direction, Mr. S.K. H. Rizvi produced before me a sealed certified true copy of the said notification bearing No.318/701/51 dated 9th May 1951. A perusal of this would show that in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 the Central Government was pleased to authorise the Registrar of Trade Marks to delegate any particular function of the Registrar to an officer other than the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The aforesaid copy has been taken on record. The learned counsel for the appellants also inserted in the record certified sealed true copies of the orders dated 5th of October 1967 and 8th of November 1967 by which the rectification application filed by the appellant in the present case before the Registrar of Trade Marks was made over by him to the Assistant Registrar for hearing and decision. Mr. Abdul Latif Thakur, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that after the amendment of the Trade Marks Act in the year 1946 the words and any reference in this Act to the Registrar shall include a reference to any Deputy Registrar when so discharging any such function" were omitted from subsection (2B) to section 4 of the Act. By this omission counsel concluded that the intention of the Legislation was to delegate only simple functions and not to delegate the function of adjudication under the provision of the Act. I have not been able to follow the logic behind this reasoning. The power of the Central Government in relation to delegation of powers by the Registrar applies to any particular function and a reference to the Gazette notification produced in this behalf shows that the Registrar has been authorised to delegate any particular function of his to an officer other than a Deputy Registrar. Any attempt to circumscribe both in subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Act and the order of delegation seems to be wholly unjustified and clearly does violence to the language used."
' Mr. A. Rauf also referred to the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shamshuddin (PLD 1962 Karachi 810) and an English case of Huth v. Clarke (1890) 25 ()BD 391 for advancing the proposition that whatever a person has power to do himself he may do so by means of an agent.
6. In our view the basic point escaped the attention of the High Court in this case as also in the cited judgment reported in PLD 1970 Karachi 537 and that is that under subsection (2B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, for authorising the Registrar, the Federal Government is required to specify the particular function or functions which the Federal Government wishes the Registrar may delegate. The notification of 9th May 1951 does not specify any particular function or functions of the Registrar and is a mere reproduction of subsection (2B). The appellants have not produced any other notification of the Federal Government under which the Registrar has been authorised to delegate his functions of deciding applications for registration to the Senior Examiner.
7. A reference may also be made to subsection (2-A) of section 4 whereunder the Federal Government is authorised to appoint one or more Deputy Registrars to discharge such functions of the Registrar under the Act as the Registrar may from time to time authorise them to discharge and any reference in the Act to the Registrar shall include a reference to any Deputy Registrar when so discharging any such functions. In subsection (2A) entirely different language has been used by the Legislature as compared to the language used in subsection (2B). The intention of the Legislature appears to be clear. Under subsection (2-A), no notification of the Federal Government is required and the Registrar is empowered to direct the Deputy Registrars to perform such functions of the Registrar under the Act as the Registrar may from time to time authorise them to discharge. As observed it has also been provided in subsection (2A) that any reference in the Act to the Registrar shall include a reference to any Deputy Registrar when so discharging any such function.
On the other hand, under subsection (2B), the Registrar can delegate only such functions to other officers which are specified by the Federal Government in the notification required to be issued in the official Gazette.
8. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the Registrar could not authorise the Senior Examiner to deal with and decide the application for registration filed by the respondent. As a result this appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.