P L D 1969 Dacca 463 (PLP)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Having been aggrieved by an order of respondent No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca refusing to authenticate a declaration made by petitioner No. 2 under sec tion 7 of the Press and Publications Ordinance, 1960 as Printer and Publisher of the newspaper entitled "Sangbad" the petitioners obtained this Rule nisi upon the respondents to show cause why the impugned order dated the 22‑5‑67 (Annexure `Q' to the affidavit of petitioner No. 1) should not be declared to have been made without lawful authority and why respondent No. 2 should not be directed to accept and authenticate the said declaration. Petitioner No. 1, "Sangbad Limited" a company incorpo rated under the Companies Act, 1913, is the proprietor of the Bengali daily newspaper "Sangbad" which has been in continuous publication since the year 1951. Petitioner No. 2 is the Assistant Advertising Manager of petitioner No.

1. Throughout its existence for about sixteen years invariably either a Director or an employee of petitioner No. 1 made a declaration as printer and publisher and with the solitary exception of the present declarant (petitioner No. 2), all such declarations, parti cularly those made subsequent to the first declaration, were authenticated as a matter of course. The declaration made by Mr. Nasiruddin Ahmed, a Director of petitioner No. 1 and predecessor of petitioner No. 2 as printer and publisher, was authenticated on the 6‑6‑

64. On 28‑3‑67 Mr. Nasiruddin Ahmed was arrested under the Defence of Pakistan Rules on the allega tions that certain prejudicial leaflets had been published in East Pakistan Press whose Keeper he was. The petitioners have asserted that the said allegations against Mr. Nasiruddin Ahmed were in no way connected with "Sangbad". After his release on bail on the 5‑4‑67 Nasiruddin expressed his desire to discontinue as the printer and publisher of "Sangbad", and having intimated to petitioner No. 1 that the former was resigning sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca along with a forwarding letter dated 26‑4‑67 a declaration that the former ceased to be the printer and publisher of "Sangbad". Petitioner No. 1, therefore, immediately sent a letter dated the 27‑4‑67 to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Dacca enclosing therewith an application for a fresh declaration in the name of the petitioner No.

2. A regular declaration Form B was also sent for authen tication. The petitioners expected that as on previous occasions the authentication would be made in due course but to their surprise they received from M. K. Anwar, Esqr., C. S. P., Deputy Commissioner, Dacca the following memorandum dated the 22‑5‑67 addressed to the petitioner No. 2 hereinafter called the impugned order:‑ "IMMEDIATE Government of East Pakistan, Office of the Deputy Commissioner. Dacca Memo. No. 302‑R C dated 22‑5‑

67. From : M. K. Anwar, Esqr., C. S. P., Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. To : Mr. Khandakar Nurul Huq, 4, Mugbazar, Dacca. The declaration filed by you on 29‑4‑67 as printer/publisher of a daily newspaper Sangbad was examined in all its aspects. After careful examination of the facts and circumstances it has been decided not to authenticate the said declaration. Your prayer for authentication has therefore, been rejected under sub‑clauses (d) & (f ) of section 12 (2) of the Press and Publication Ordinance, 1960. (M. K. Anwar), Dy. Commissioner, Dacca 22‑5‑67." As a result of this refusal "Sangbad" which has been in continuous publication for about sixteen years and against which it is claimed no offence whatsoever has ever been alleged, is threatened with cessation of publication. The petitioners have asserted that there was no basis at all for the refusal of the Deputy Commissioner to authenticate the declaration, and as such it was obligatory on him to authenticate the declaration. Furthermore it is said that adverse findings have been made against the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to controvert them. The petitioners have further stated that the impugned order is mala fide, and has been made for a collateral purpose, namely, for preventing the publication of "Sangbad" which has been pursuing an independent policy and giving due and adequate coverage to the demands and aspirations of the people, and of the opposition forces in the country and has thereby incurred the displeasure of the respondents. It is stated that as a result of the cessation of publication of "Sangbad" about 200 employees have lost their livelihood. In their affidavits‑in‑reply the petitioners have categorically asserted that they have adequate resources to publish "Sangbad" regularly and in support of it have annexed the balance‑sheet of "Sangbad" as it stood on 31‑3‑

66. It is asserted that the financial position of petitioner No. 1 has steadily improved, and its revenues now exceed its expenditure. It is claimed that the average annual revenue from advertisements alone is approxi mately rupees three lacs. Petitioner No. 2 has also annexed to, his affidavit dated 12‑6‑67 a certificate from the auditors of petitioner No. 1 (Annexure X‑1 to the affidavit) showing that the Books of Accounts of Messrs "Sangbad Limited" for the year 1966‑67 is under audit, and they show an excess of revenue over expenditure for the year under reference. The petitioners have categorically denied that they ever acted prejudicially to the defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan and have asserted without fear of contradiction that there can be no materials to show that petitioner No. 2 is likely to act in the pre-judicial manner as mentioned in section 12 (2) (f) of the Ordinance. Petitioner No. 2 has further asserted that he has never indulged or participated in any political activity nor has he been a member of any political party. It is stated that the brief strike from the 15‑5‑67 to the 21‑5‑67 was not at all regarding any dispute as to inability of petitioner No. I to pay the salaries as alleged by the respondents. It is asserted that the strike was only on the issue as to the date of payment of monthly salaries. An agreement (vide Annexure `Y' to the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 dated the 12‑6‑67) was reached between the' parties on the 22‑5‑67 whereby the. dispute was completely settled. On behalf of the respondents affidavits sworn by respondent. No. 1, the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca have been put in. Respondent No. l has asserted that authentication of declaration is not a routine matter but it is done after careful examination of the facts and circumstances available and subject to The fulfilment of all conditions as enumerated in section 12(2) of the Ordinance. The respondent has further asserted that to his subjective satisfac tion petitioner No. 2 was found not to have the requisite financial resources. It is further asserted that there were sufficient materials to furnish a valid basis for the satisfaction of the deponent as to matters referred to in clauses (d) and (f) of section 12(2) of the Ordinance and consequently for the impugned order. It is emphasised that authentication is done only when the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied on the facts,, materials and circumstances of each case in view of section 12(2). It is claimed that the grant of authentication is discretionary and that this discretion has been exercised in this case bona fide after a careful consideration of the materials and with great circums pection, and never arbitrarily. Respondent No. 1 has annexed to his affidavit dated 8‑6‑67 Annexure I, which is an order of respondent No. 1 giving further grounds of his refusal to authenticate. it should, however, be mentioned that this order was never communicated to the petitioners. It is asserted that the impugned order is pure and simple an administrative act, and therefore, no question of violation of principles of natural justice arises. Respondent No. t has denied the allegations of mala fide with the collateral purpose of preventing the publica tion of newspaper. It is also denied that the impugned order was passed under the directive of respondent No.

2. The deponent has asserted that the Provincial Government was as a matter of fact satisfied on the basis of information in its possession that petitioner No. 2 was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan. On enquiry the deponent was intimated about the views of the Government by its memorandum 493‑Poll (ll)/S dated 22‑5‑67 which the deponent offered to produce before the Court if necessary, and which in fact has been produced before the Court by Mr. T. H. Khan, Acting Advocate 4leneral. In his supplementary affidavit dated 14‑6‑67 respondent No. 1 has stated that it was incumbent and imperative on the part of the petitioners to place full facts in support of their claim of financial resources along with the declaration in order to assail the impugned order. It is asserted that the audited report put in by the petitioners far from supporting the adequacy of the financial resources of the petitioners disclosed on the contrary that "Sangbad Limited" had suffered a huge loss and that its liabilities amounted to nearly Rupees Seven lacs. He has further asserted that on the 22‑5‑67 the bank account mentioned in the declaration of petitioner No. 2 showed a negligible balance. It is alleged that Annexure X(1) to the affidavit of petitioner No. 2 has been procured for the purpose of the case and is of no assistance in appreciating the financial position of petitioner No.

1. The deponent asserts that he is the sole Judge for the purpose of section 12(2) (d) and no procedure having been prescribed he through his various agencies and by telephonic conversations, fully informed himself about the financial resources. He however, admits that he did not consider it necessary to keep formal records of the verbal or telephonic informations. It may be mentioned here that the entire criticism of the Deputy Commissioner in respect of the auditor's report and regarding the negligible bank balance lying to the credit of "Sangbad Limited" are professed to be based on information derived from the affidavit‑in‑reply of petitioner No. 2 dated the 12‑6‑67 (vide paragraph 5 of the affidavit of respondent No. 1 dated 14‑6‑67). It is, therefore, necessary to point out that the said affidavit‑in -reply does not furnish any basis for the said criticism or for the assertion about the negligible bank balance. It may also be mentioned that all the three respondents have jointly filed affidavits although in the facts and circumstances of the case it was appropriate that respondent No. 2 the Provincial Government should have stated its own case on the question of its satisfaction mentioned in section 12(2) (f) of the Ordinance. On these facts and circumstances Mr. Kamal Hossain, Advocate for the petitioners has contended that on the facts admitted by the respondents, and those placed or omitted to be placed before the Court respondent No. 1 the Deputy Commis sioner, Dacca has acted in excess of jurisdiction in refusing to authenticate the said declaration of petitioner No.

2. He has argued that each and every item under section 12(2) of the Ordinance requires that the Deputy Commissioner must consider the question of authentication on the sole basis of the existence of actual facts, and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner is precluded from arriving at his satisfaction without reference to facts, and merely on the basis of conjecture or caprice. Mr. Kamal Hossain has further contended that on the facts disclosed by the respondents there is total absence of factual basis upon which the impugned order of refusal can be legally sustained. He has also contended that as the impugned order has adversely affected the right of the petitioners to pursue their lawful avoca tions, the Deputy Commissioner was under legal obligation to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to explain the facts and circumstances appearing against the petitioners and the Deputy Commissioner's omission to do so has resulted in the contravention of the principles of natural justice. For an appropriate appreciation of the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners it is necessary to refer to or reproduce the relevant provisions of the Press and Publications Ordinance (Ordinance XV of 1960) hereinafter called the Ordinance. Section 7 of the Ordinance makes it obligatory for the printer and publisher of every newspaper to make and subscribe a declara tion in certain prescribed form. Section 12 of the Ordinance is as follows:‑ "

12. Authentication of the declaration.‑(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), each of the triplicate originals of every declaration made and subscribed under section 7 shall be authenticated by the signature and official seal of the District Magistrate before whom the said declaration is made. (2) The District Magistrate shall not authenticate the declaration unless he is satisfied that‑ (a) the proprietor of the newspaper if he himself is not the printer or the publisher has authorized the making of such declaration; (b) the title of the newspaper proposed to be published. is not the same as the title of any newspaper already being published in the same language at any place in the same Province, not being a newspaper of different periodicity published by the same publisher or another edition of the same newspaper published from another place; (c) the printer or the publisher was not convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude within five years before the date of his making and subscribing a declaration under section 7; (d) the publisher has the financial resources required for regularly publishing the newspaper; (e) the editor possesses reasonable educational qualifications or has had adequate training or experience in journalism; and (f) the printer or publisher is a person about whom the Government is satisfied, on the basis of information in its possession that he is not likely to act in a manner prejudicial , to the defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan.". It is evident from the provisions of section 12(2) that each and every item thereunder clearly and unmistakably refers to the existence of facts on the basis of which alone the Deputy Commissioner is to derive his satisfaction. The word "satisfaction" itself connotes that the facts must be such as to afford a reasonable basis for the satisfaction, and it, therefore, excludes mere conjecture, rumour or caprice. An ordinary prudent person is not expected to act merely on conjecture, rumour or whim. Section 12 has clearly put the Deputy Commissioner under an obligation to authenticate the declaration. He has, however, been directed not to authenticate unless he is satisfied as to the existence of certain conditions precedent to the determination of which must be based on facts. Section 12(2) leaves no scope for the Deputy Commissioner to proceed merely on the basis of his informations totally divorced from facts: For example, in section 12(2) (a), the Deputy Commissioner must be satisfied that the proprietor has‑in fact authorised the making of the declaration or not; in clause (b) of the subsection he must be satisfied as to the actual publication of any other newspapers in the Province having the same title as the newspaper proposed to be published; in clause (c) he must be satisfied that the printer and publisher was not actually convicted of a particular kind of offence. Similarly in clause (d) the Deputy Commissioner must satisfy himself on the basis of hard facts whether the publisher has in fact the requisite financial resources. In our opinion this clause clearly contemplates an enquiry at which the publisher canto be excluded only at the risk of stultifying the enquiry. Mr. Kamal Hossain has rightly argued that the publisher is the best person to satisfy the Deputy Commissioner about any doubts he may have on the former's financial resources only if the Deputy Commissioner calls upon him to resolve the doubts and that any enquiry behind the back of the publisher is unfair to him and the newspaper concerned. Any informations adverse to the publisher collected by the Deputy Commissioner may turn out to be baseless if the publisher is confronted with them and given an opportunity to explain them. In such circumstances it is inconceivable that a responsible officer of the position of the Deputy Commissioner would act merely on untested informations'. In our opinion the Legislature has excluded any scope for such imprudent or unreasonable action. To revert to the section we think that clause (e) of section 12(2) too, requires the satis faction to be on the basis of facts whether the editor possesses reasonable educational qualifications or has had adequate training or experience in journalism. Lastly, clause (f) seems to us to be clear that the satisfaction must be based on the actual fact that the printer or publisher is a person about whom the Government satisfied, on the basis of information in its possession that he is not is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan. Prejudicial act of no other description is relevant for the purpose of this clause. In our opinion, therefore, a mere mention of section 12(2) (f) as contained in the order of refusal (vide Annexure `Q' to the petition) unsupported by records to show that the Government, on the basis of information in its possession, has in fact been unable to express its satisfaction that the declarant is not a person likely to act prejudicially in the manner specified in sec tion 12(2)( f), is not a reasonable ground to refuse authentication. Having thus expressed our views on the correct legal position in regard to authentication we now turn to consider whether there do exist facts to furnish a reasonable basis for the impugned order of refusal. It is now well settled that even in a case where the law requires a particular authority to act on its own opinion only the authority is required to satisfy the Court that it has acted on reasonable basis and the authority is consequently under a duty to place before the Court the relevant facts in its possession. It may be stated at the outset that the attitude of the respondents as disclosed in their affidavits in regard to the question of authentication is rather dubious. On the one hand an impres sion is sought to be created that the matter of authentication is entirely within the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner and that he can arrive at his satisfaction under section i 2(2) in any manner he likes. On the other hand it has been emphasised over and over again that the Deputy Commissioner has acted solely on a careful consideration of the facts and materials before him. In our opinion whatever the attitude of the Deputy Commis sioner has been to the question of authentication it is now tool late in the date to contend that he is absolved from the duty of placing before the Court the relevant facts and materials upon the basis of which he claimed his satisfaction. So far as section 12 of the Ordinance is concerned there is no doubt about the fact that the Deputy Commissioner is enjoined by law to act solely on the basis of the existence of actual facts. As regards the refusal to authenticate on the ground of want of requisite financial resources, we may state that in spite of our direction to do so the respondents have failed to produce before us the materials on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner found that petitioner No. 2 had not the requisite resources. We are, therefore, left only with certain bald assertions in the affidavits of the respondents, namely, that from various sources the Deputy Commissioner collected informations mostly verbal in nature, records of which have never been kept by him, and on these informations the Deputy Commissioner was satisfied as to the absence of the requisite resource's of the petitioners. Besides, it has been asserted without any basis whatsoever that the recent strike by the employees of "Sangbad Limited" was the result of its inability to pay salaries to its employees. This statement has been categorically denied by the petitioners and it is asserted on the contrary that the strike, which was of extremely short duration, namely, commencing from the 15‑5‑67 and ending on the 22‑5‑67, was only on the issue as to on which date of the month salaries should be paid. The petitioners have further asserted without any contradiction that on the date the impugned order of refusal was served upon the petitioners, namely, 22‑5‑67 at about 8 p. m. the matter had been settled and the strike had ended, and in support of this statement the petitioners have annexed a copy of the memorandum of agreement between the manage ment of the `Sangbad' and their workers dated the 22‑5‑67 attested among others by Assistant Director of Labour (vide Annexure `Y' to the affidavit‑in‑reply of the petitioners dated the 12‑6‑67). The circumstances that during the last sixteen years of its career, "Sangbad" has never ceased publication for non‑payment of salaries to its employees speaks more eloquently in favour of the petitioners' financial resources than mere unverified verbal informations unsupported by facts and figures. There is another significant circumstances. If the financial condition of "Sangbad Limited" had been so bad as alleged by the respondents, it was expected that the Deputy Commissioner would have brought this to the notice of "Sangbad" and its publisher and they would have been told that the declaration of the printer and publisher was liable to be cancelled due to the lack of the requisite financial resources. It is an admitted fact that once before the declaration filed by a printer and publisher of "Sangbad" was withdrawn on the ground that the declaration had been `provisionally authenticated' in the absence of certain particulars as required under section 12(2) of the Ordinance with the result that another declaration had to be filed in the name of a Director of `Sangbad' (vide Annexure `G' of the petition). The position that has emerged, therefore, is that the peti tioners have not only made a categorical assertion that they have the requisite financial resources to run the publication of `Sangbad' regularly, but have also in support of such assertion placed facts and figures including a copy of the audited report of "Sangbad Limited" for the year ending on 31‑3‑66, and a certificate from the auditors of "Sangbad Limited'" dated 9‑6‑67 to the effect that the Books of Account of the Company for the year 1966‑67 are under audit and that they showed an excess of revenue over expenditure for the year under reference (vide, Annexure "X‑l" to the affidavit of petitioner No. 2, dated 12‑6‑67). The said audit report clearly shows that during the year in ques tion "Sangbad Limited" made a gross profit of Rs. 1,18,496.91 paisas. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think that Annexure "X‑1" has been illegally procured. These facts and figures clearly speak in favour of the petitioners so far as the existence of the requisite financial resources is concerned. As against this situation no materials have been placed before us on behalf of the respondents to counteract the facts and figures. Except the bare statements unsupported by facts that the petitioners have not the requisite financial resources, and an indication of the nature of the information that might have been in the possession of the Deputy Commissioner, namely, an information from the banker of "Sangbad Limited" as to the amount lying to its credit on the particular date, and ate obviously incorrect information that the said strike of the employees of "Sangbad" was due to non‑payment of salaries to the employees regularly there is absolutely nothing on the basis of which it can be held that the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner in this respect had any reasonable basis at all. In course of his argument learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has argued that the balance‑sheet shows that the Company is indebted to the extent of Rs. 6,99,358.60 paisas. To this it has been rightly pointed out that the amount of these debts include a sum of over Rs. 6,00,000 advanced by the Directors of the Company themselves. In the facts and circumstances stated above we prefer to accept the statements made by the petitioners to the effect that they have the requisite financial resources to publish the newspaper "Sangbad" regularly particularly when they are supported by facts and figures, and the significant circumstance that the newspaper has never stopped publication for a day due to non‑payment of salaries during the sixteen years of its existence. There is another aspect of this matter. Undoubtedly the power of the Deputy Commissioner to grant or refuse authentica tion is a statutory power provided under section 12 of the Ordinance, and this power as we have already said is exercisable only on an ascertainment of facts which presupposes that there must be an enquiry at which the presence of the person making the declaration is necessary. In such a case, therefore, where an adverse order is to be made by the Deputy Commissioner affecting certain rights of the declarant the principles of natural justice are most naturally attracted in order to furnish the person going to be aggrieved by the proposed order an opportunity to show cause against the order. The law is now settled that even in the case of an administrative act the essential duty is to secure fairness, and, therefore, the principles of natural justice, namely, issuing a notice of the proposed order to the person going to be aggrieved by it and affording him an opportunity of being heard, apply provided the relevant statute requires the administrative authority concerned to base its decision on an objective determination of facts and does not exclude the application of such principles (vide Abul A'la Moududi v. The Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1964 S C 673). We may mention here that the Ordinance has not excluded the application of the principles of natural justice and as we have already seen above, it requires the Deputy Commissioner to base his decision on an objective determination of facts. The law has been further clarified thus in the case of the University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad (P L D 1965 S C 90): "that in all proceedings by whomsoever held, whether judicial or administrative, the principles of natural justice have to be observed if the proceedings might result in consequences affecting `the person or property or other right of the parties concerned'." It has held: ‑ "From a careful review of the decisions cited before us it appears that wherever any person or body of persons is empowered to take decisions after ex post facto investigation into facts which would result in consequences affecting the person, property or other right of another person, then in the absence of any express words in the enactment giving such power excluding the application of the principles of natural justice, the Courts of law are inclined generally to imply that the power so given is coupled with the duty to act in accord ance with such principles of natural justice as may be applicable in the facts and circumstances of a given case . .Nevertheless, the general concensus of judicial opinion seems to be that, in order to ensure the 'elemen tary and essential principles of fairness' as a matter of necessary implication, the person sought to be affected must at least be made aware of the nature of the allegations against him, he should be given a fair opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his own case and `to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice'." In the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, before the Deputy Commissioner arrived at his satisfaction it was his duty not only to give the petitioners notice of the grounds of' his refusal but also to give them an opportunity to controvert those grounds. As regards the second ground of refusal to authenticate the Deputy Commissioner has asserted that he acted on the basis of an information received from the Provincial Government as contained in its memo. No. 493‑Poll (lI)/S, dated 22‑5‑67 that the Government was satisfied that petitioner No. 2 was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence or external affairs or the security of Pakistan. This memorandum has been placed before us by the learned Acting Advocate‑General but we do not find anything in the memorandum and its enclosure to indicate that the Government, on the basis of information in its possession, was unable to come to a satisfaction that petitioner No. 2 was not likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the defence or external affairs or the security of Pakistan. It is significant that not a h word about any activity of petitioner No. 2 which is likely to furnish him with an occasion to act in a manner prejudical to the defence or external affairs or the security of Pakistan has been mentioned in the memorandum or its enclosure. ‑In fact there is even no allegation of any political activity of petitioner No.

2. As against this petitioner No. 2 has categorically asserted in his affidavit‑in‑reply dated the 12‑6‑67 without fear of contradiction that there can be no material whatsoever to show that he is in any way likely to act prejudicially to the defence or external affairs or the security of Pakistan. He has further asserted that he has never indulged in or participated in political activities nor has he ever been a member of any political party. He has also stated that except for his work as Assistant Advertising Manager of "Sangbad" he has never been interested is any other work or activities for which any adverse inference gain be drawn against him, These statements have not been controverted although the respondents had an opportunity to do so while putting in their affidavit‑in‑opposition dated 14‑6‑67 in reply to the said affidavit of petitioner No.

2. The aforesaid memorandum and its enclosure seem to fully bear out the aforesaid unchallenged assertions of petitioner No.

2. In our opinion, therefore, there is absolutely no basis far less any reasonable basis for refusing to authenticate the declaration filed by the petitioner No. 2 on the ground mentioned in section 12 (2) (f ). It may not be out of place to mention here that there is nothing to show that the newspaper "Sangbad" has ever been guilty of any misconduct or has acted in a manner prejudicial to the defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan or that there has been any allegation of that description against the newspaper. In our opinion section 12 is never intended to be used for penalising a newspaper already in publication for, misbehaviour. Mr. Kamal Hossain has rightly contended that there are adequate laws including the Ordinance to enable the authority to discipline or punish an erring newspaper or its printer and publisher. As regards petitioner's allegation of mala fide against the respondents we do not think sufficient materials have been placed before us to enable us to express any definite opinion on such allegation. We have finally come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case there is no reasonable ground for the Deputy Commissioner to refuse authentication, and he is, there fore, under a legal duty to authenticate the declaration of petitioner No.

2. We accordingly make the Rule absolute with costs which we assess at twenty gold Mohurs. We declare that the impugned order of respondent No. 'l the Deputy Commissioner refusing to; authenticate the declaration of petitioner No. 2 has been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect. We further direct respondent No. 1 the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca to authenticate forthwith in terms of section 12 (1) of the Ordinance the declaration made and subscribed by petitioner No.

2. Mr. Anwarul Huque Chowdhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents; has prayed for a certificate under Article 58 of the Constitution. His prayer is refused. He has also prayed for a stay of the operation of the order passed by us. This prayer, too, is refused. A: M. SAYEM, J.‑I agree. ABU MD. ABDULLA, J.‑I agree. A. H; Rule made absolute.