1968 SCMR 187 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-This appeal by special leave involves consideration of. a single question, viz., whether West Pakistan Ordinance No. 32 of 1962 is void, for lack of assent of the President under Article 110 (2) of the Constitution of 1956, then in force, in respect of an amendment brought about in the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, whereby the Provincial Government was empowered to appoint Additional District Judges as appellate authorities under the latter Ordinance where previously that power was confined to appointment of District Judges only. The case of the appellant was dealt with by an Additional District Judge, whose order is dated the 30th January 1965. A second appeal to the High Court was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, on grounds which are not relevant for the present purpose. The learned Single Judge had, however, refused a prayer, made at the hearing of the second appeal, for permission to add a fresh ground, namely, that the Ordinance of 1962 was void for the alleged defect indicated above. Leave to appeal further to this Court was granted on a single point, viz., to consider the vires of the Ordinance of 1962. We have heard Mr. Aftab Hussain in support of the appeal. The respondents did not contest the appeal, which was proceeded with ex parte. On examination of the question, we find that the validity of the Ordinance in the relevant respect does not turn on the according or otherwise of the President's assent. The need for the amendment arose in consequence of a judgment of the High Court in the case of Khadim Mohy-ud-Din v. Rahmat Ali (1) an appeal from which was heard and dismissed by this Court on the 16th December 1964, the report being published under the same description. The High Court had held that the Ordinance of 1959 had named the District Judge, for appointment as appellate authority, (1) P L D 1964 S C 459 not in his judicial capacity, but as persona designata. Conse quently, an Additional District Judge could not act as appellate authority, under the Ordinance, in purported exercise of the co-ordinate power with the District Judge which he possessed by virtue of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 (the case related to the Punjab region). It was with the object of enabling the ProvinciarGovernment to nominate Additional District Judges also as appellate authorities that the Ordinance of 1959 was amended in 1962. Mr. Aftab Hussain was not able to show that the addition of other persons, by official designation, who could be nominated as persona designata under the Ordinance of 1959 to act as appellate' authorities, was in conflict with any Central Statute, or had the effect of contravening anything contained in such a law. Conse quently, there would appear to have deen no necessity for the President's assent under Article 110(2) aforesaid, to confer4 validity on the amendment. The subject was within the major subjects of "transfer of property" and "civil law" included in item I in Part I of the Concurrent List in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of 1962, and thus within the legislativ competence of the Province. Mr. Aftab Hussain was not able to show that the provision introduced by the amendment was per se repugnant to any Central Statute relating to either of these subjects. The appeal is therefore without force, and we accordingly dismiss it, but since the respondent has not chosen to contest it we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.