P L D 1970 Dacca 422 (PLP)

SIDDIQI, C. J‑--The petitioner Mr. Farid Ahmad, obtained this Rule nisi calling in question the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Dacca, dated 24‑11‑66 contained in memo. No. 6587/Gen/Press rejecting his petition for authentica tion of a declaration for publication of a daily newspaper to be called "Daily Mujahid". It is stated by the petitioner that on 7‑7‑66 he filed a declaration under section printer and publisher of a proposed newspaper "Daily Mujahid" before the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. On 13‑12‑66, the petitioner received the impugned memo dated 24‑11‑66 Annexure "A" informing him that his petition for publication of a daily newspaper "Daily Mujahid" has been rejected under section 12 (2) (f) of the Press and Publications Ordinance, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. He thereafter issued a notice on the respondent No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, demanding justice. Having received no reply to this demand justice notice, he filed ‑the present petition on 23‑1‑67 challenging the validity of the impugned memo. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that in terms of section 12 of the Ordinance, it is the District Magistrate who is to authenticate the declaration sought under section 7 or to refuse the declaration. But in this case, instead of the District Magistrate who is now designated as the Deputy Commissioner, the order under section 12 of the Ordinance has been passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (G), Dacca, who, under the law, is not the person authorised to exercise powers under section 12 of the Ordinance. The contention has no substance because of the fact that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mr. M. S. Khan Choudhry, who passed the impugned order, was conferred with all the powers of a District Magistrate, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, on and from 6th of October 1966. The next contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the authority mentioned in section 12 of the Ordinance is under obligation to satisfy himself before either authenticating the declaration or refusing to authenticate the same and also to indicate in his order the reasons in the event of his refusing to authenticate the declaration. Section 12 is in the following terms:- "12.‑(1) . (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 possessed 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 argued from the Bar on behalf of the petitioner that the order of respondent No. 1 refusing to authenticate the declaration is not in conformity with the provisions of subsection (2) of section

12. To understand the argument of the petitioner the impugned order is quoted below: "Government of East Pakistan Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dacca. Memo. No. 6587/Gen/Press. Dated 24‑11‑

66. To Mr. Farid Ahmed, M.A., B.L. Advocate, Dacca High Court, 27, Abhoy Das Lane, Dacca. Subject:-- Publication of a Daily Newspaper " fainik Mujahid". Re:‑ His petition dated 7‑7‑

66. His petition for publication of the above daily has been rejected under section 12(2)(f) of the Press and Publications Ordinance, 1960. (Sd.) Illegible. 25‑11‑

66. For Addl. Deputy Commissioner (G), Dacca." It is contended that mere reference to one or more of the sub -clauses of subsection (2) of section 12 while rejecting authentication of the declaration, is not sufficient compliance with the law. The District Magistrate has to satisfy himself with regard to the matters contained in clauses (a) to (f) before rejecting authentica tion of the declaration and while doing so he has to give reasons for the rejection. Section 12 has two subsections: Subsection (1) provides that when the District Magistrate is satisfied with regard to the matters contained in several clauses of subsection (2) he is to authenticate a declaration made under section 7 of the Ordinance filed with him. The question is as to whether the District Magistrate can while refusing authentication, only make a reference to the pertinent clauses of subsection (2) for reasons of which he does not feel satisfied for authenticating the declaration. As we read subsection (2) of section 12, we are of the view that the matters contained in clauses (a) to (e) are those about which the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is not dependent on any other authority. The satisfaction is that of the District Magistrate himself. But, with regard to the matter contained in clause (f), the satisfaction of the District Magistrate is dependent upon the satisfaction of the Provincial Government. The satisfaction of the Government, as contemplated by clause (f) on the basis of information in its possession, has to be communicated to the District Magistrate from which the District Magistrate; himself must feel satisfied that there is no reason for refusal to: authenticate the declaration. Now, if the satisfaction of the District Magistrate with regard to the matters contained in clause (f) is dependant upon the satisfaction of the Government, then having received a communication from the Government in that behalf, will the action of the District Magistrate be in conformity with the law to communicate his refusal to the declarant only by a meer reference to clause (f), as has been done in the present case? Another question also arises as to whether the District Magistrate whose satisfaction is contemplated by law even with regard to matters contained in clause (f), can be said to have been satisfied only by an intimation sent in a cryptic form by the Government to him without giving any grounds for Government's satisfaction relatable to any of the three subjects mentioned in clause (f). As we read with the provisions of subsection (2) with particular reference to the provisions of clause (f) thereof, we are left with no doubt in our mind that the law demands that the Government, is the first instance, must have information in its possession to satisfy itself that the declarant is not likely to act in a manner prejudicial to either defence or external affairs or security of Pakistan. After being so satisfied, it is then incumbent upon the Government to communicate to the District Magistrate its satisfaction with reference to all or any of the three subjects, namely, defence, external affairs and security of Pakistan. We say this because unless the District Magistrate is told by the Government about its satisfaction with particular reference to materials in its possession relatable to the specific item, it will not be possible for the District Magistrate to be satisfied before authentication or refusing the declaration, as he is the authority to grant or refuse the authentication. It therefore, resolves to this that the information given by the Government to the District Magistrate with regard to its satis faction or dissatisfaction, must contain sufficient materials for the District Magistrate to apply his mind before he passes the final order. Otherwise, the District Magistrate has to act as an automaton with regard to his consideration of the provisions of clause (f). A refusal to authenticate for reasons of unsuitability of the declarant because of his activities relatable to any of the matters contained in clause (f) only by reference to the clause will not be in compliance with law. As in the case of preventive detention the Government is not bound to disclose the information in its possession but has to give grounds to the detenu based on such informations for the order of detention, so, in a case under the Press Ordinance where an authentication of a declaration is refused, the authority, namely, the District Magistrate, must give the grounds for refusal without disclosing the informations that may be in possession of the Government and/or the District Magistrate. Grounds so given must be relatable to the several clauses of subsection (2). With regard to the grounds relatable to clause (f) those must be with particular reference to the subjects mentioned in the said sub- clause. In the present case, as already observed, the refusal has been made only by a reference to clause (f) of subsection (2) without recording any grounds. The action of the District Magistrate in the present case, in our opinion has been that of an automaton and in clear violation of the provisions of law. Since subsection (1) of section 12 demands, of the District Magistrate to authenticate a declaration, it becomes all the more incumbent upon him to give grounds for refusal to authenticate and those grounds cannot be construed from a mere reference to C the clause as he is required to be satisfied before passing the order of satisfaction. This satisfaction, as required by section 12, must necessarily be an objective satisfaction, or in other words, the order of the District Magistrate must be a speaking order. Nowhere it has been said in the present case that the District Magistrate was satisfied in regard to the satisfaction of the Government contemplated by clause (f) while refusing to authenticate the declaration. In‑the present case except saying that there are sufficient grounds for the Government not to feel satisfied and it is not necessary in public interest to disclose the materials upon which the satisfaction was arrived at, nothing else has been said by the respondents in the affidavit‑in‑opposition. There are cases adhere such referential orders have been held to be good when the authority disclosed to the Court materials upon which the satisfaction was arrived at, which were found by the Court to be sufficient to support the referential order. The learned Advocate‑General placed before us the Govern ment file relating to this case for our perusal. Having‑ looked into the papers, we have no hesitation to say that there was no justification for refusal to authenticate the declaration made by the petitioner on grounds mentioned in clause (f) of subsection (2). In the ultimate analysis we are of the view that the District Magistrate has, in refusing to authenticate the declaration of the petitioner, acted outside the scope of the law and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We accordingly make the rule absolute, set aside the order of the District Magistrate contained in his Memo No. 6587/ Gen/Press dated 24‑11‑66 and we direct him to act in this matter in accordance with law. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. ABDUL HAKIM, J.

‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule made absolute.