P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Constitution of Laws:‑(I) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, and subject to any order of the Governor‑General under section 5 of this Act and to the powers of any competent legislature, all laws in force in West Pakistan immediately before the appointed day shall continue to apply to the areas and the persons to whom they would have applied if this Act had not been passed ": The main issue, therefore, devolved on the question, whether, this Baluchistan States Union Public Safety Regulation, 1954, was an existing law at the time of integration. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the following arguments :‑ (i) The counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the Government of West Pakistan, had referred to the Constitution Act, 1952, as the source of this legislation. This position was, according to the counsel for the petitioner, given up by Mr. Khalid Ishaque at the time of argument which showed that Govern ment was not sure of the position taken up by them and the petitioner should have been notified of this change in the position taken up by Government. Mr. Khalid Ishaque, as we have discussed above, has pre ferred to rely on the Covenant executed by the Rulers and, according to him, this Baluchistan States Union Public Safety Regulation, 1954, was based upon the Covenant executed by these Rulers and was duly ratified by them on the 26th October, 1954. Government case, therefore, is not based on the powers assumed under the Baluchistan States Union (Interim Constitution) Act, 1952. (ii) It was contended by the learned counsel for the peti tioner that the Covenant executed by the Rulers was not proved in accordance with law. According to him, the dates of this Regulation should have been proved by the production of a certified copy as required under section 78 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Khalid Ishaque undertook to supply to the Court certified copy and said that, as the officers were away in Rawalpindi, he could not bring them for the purpose of being embodied in the record. He had, however, the original which he showed to the counsel for the petitioner and produced un certified copies in Court. The certified and attested copy is now on record. We, therefore, think that it can be assumed that the Baluchistan States Union Public Safety Regulation, 1954, was passed by the Rulers. This is also supported by the endorse ment of 29‑11‑1954, on the ratification, dated 26‑10‑1954. Along with the endorsement copies of this ratification and the Regulation were sent to the Sessions Judge, Commissioner of Police, Registrar, Co‑operative Societies and other officers. This is not marked secret and we presume that it must have been notified in accordance with Rules and Regulations. (iii) It was further argued by the petitioner that this Baluchistan States Union Public Safety Regulation, 1954, was not a valid law because it was not passed by a competent authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a competent authority, in this case, would have been the Council of Rulers. The constitutional position of the Baluchistan States Union was, that there were four States in the Baluchistan Agency, namely : Kalat, Kharan, Makran and Lasbela. They were territories of the Government of India and acknowledged the sovereignity of British Sovereign. After August 15, 1947, when the Independence Act of 1947 came into operation, these States became Independent. Afterwards they entered into treaties with the Government of Pakistan in March 1948. In 1952, an idea of forming Baluchistan States Union was mooted. A Covenant was signed by the Rulers of the four Baluchistan States on the 11th April, 1952, in which, they authorised the Council of Rulers which composed all the four Rulers of the States to frame the Interim Constitution of the Union with the approval of the Central Government, so that, it might be placed before the Legislative Assembly of the Union for confirmation. Secondly, until the Legislative Assembly came into existence, the Council of Rulers were given powers by these autocratic Rulers of these States to make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good Government of the Union. The Rulers also executed an instrument of accession on behalf of the Union of Baluchistan States after they had individually acceded to Pakistan in March, 1948, on 3rd November, 1952, the Rulers passed the following Resolution :‑ "This instrument and the declarations in it have been made by the President on our behalf and with our authority. We authorise the President and his successors in office to make all future Instruments on our behalf and of our successors. (Sd.) (Mr. AHMAD YAR KHAN), Ruler of Kalat. (Sd.) (Mir GHULAM QADIR KHAN), Ruler of Las Bela. (Sd.) (Mir MUHAMMAD HABIB ULLAH KHAN), Ruler of Kharan. (Sd.) (BAI KHAN), Ruler of Makran ". It would thus appear that the Council of Rulers had been delegated authority by the four autocratic Rulers to make and promulgate ordinances for the peace and good Government and that they had further decided that Khane Azam i.e., the Khan of Kalat should act on their behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Resolution of 3rd November, 1952, had authorised Khane Azam Khan of Kalat to perform the duties imposed on the Council but the Regulation of 1954 was issued by the President of the Council of Rulers. The Regulation should have, therefore, been promulgated by Khane Azam and not by the President of the Council of Rulers. It was pointed out that two days after this Resolution of 1952 was passed, the Baluchistan States Union (Interim Constitution) Act was also passed by the Rulers on 5‑11‑1952 and, therefore, a fresh authorisation was necessary under the Act. As regards the Baluchistan States Union (Interim Constitu tion) Act, 1952, it appears that in reply to an enquiry from Mr. A. M. Khan, Advocate, the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of States and F. R. Division said :‑ " With reference to your letter, dated the 20th April 1959, to the Joint Secretary, I am desired to say that the Baluchistan States Union (Interim Constitution) Act, 1952, was not finalised and is, therefore, not legally complete document. No use can, therefore, be made of it in connection with a Writ Petition before the High Court of West Pakistan ". It would, therefore, not be correct to rely on the Baluchistan States Union (Interim Constitution) Act, 1952. The only docu ment, therefore, that can be considered and on which Mr. Khalid Ishaque wants to rely is the Covenant entered into by the four Independent autocratic Rulers. The events, narrated by us above, would show that the Rulers had throughout authorised the Khan of Kalat, who was the President of the Council of Rulers, to promulgate the law. The Council of Rulers ratified the Regulation of 1954 on 26‑10‑1954 and this Regulation was publicised. The four Rulers had absolute powers to issue this Regulation. We do not therefore, think that there was any defect in this Regulation of 1954, so far as it related to the Baluchistan States Union. Under section 10 of the Establish ment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, all laws, in force, in West Pakistan, immediately before the appointed day, namely : 3‑10‑1955 " shall continue to apply to area and the persons to whom they would have applied ". The law included ordinance, order, Regulation or notification issued by a competent authority. We are of the opinion that the Council of Rulers, which ratified this Regulation on 26‑10‑1954, was a competent authority and, therefore, the validity of this law could not` be questioned. The last argument in this case was that it was a mala fide order because, these orders, either of 9th December, 1958 or of 9th June, 1959, did not give any reasons or particulars on which the orders were based. There is no provision in the Baluchistan States Union Regulation, 1954, for the authorities to give details of the charges. The counter affidavit shows that the charges that were levelled against the petitioner were made known to him. This was not denied by the petitioner's counsel. We do not think, therefore, that there was any contravention of the rules embodied in the Baluchistan States Union Regulation and the argument regarding the mala fides of the Government must, there fore, fail. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition, in our view, must be dismissed and we order accordingly. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.