P (PLP)

(e) Press Emergency Powers Act (XXIII of 1931), S. 27 ‑Rule 20 of High Court Rules and Orders Vol. V, Ch. 7‑A Rule applicable only to orders Passed by High Court. Rule 20 provides that " The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules and Orders relating to the execution of decrees shall be applicable to the execution of orders passed by the High Court on petitions under section 23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931." The order of the Punjab Government, requiring the deposit of security under section 7 (3) of the Act is not an order of the High Court passed under section 27 of the Act such as could be executed by virtue of that section. Sections 47, 141 and .O. XXI r. 24 of Civil Procedure Code have no bearing where the order is not passed by the High Court. Abdur Rahim and Shamim Hussain Kadri, for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Khan, A. G. for Respondent, S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows. On the 24th of January 1951, a notice was issued by the Punjab Government under section 7 (3) of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to M. Abdul Hamid Nizami, publisher of the Urdu Daily " Nawa‑i‑Waqt " calling upon him to deposit a security in the amount of Rs. ,3,000 with the District Magistrate, Lahore, on or before the 6th day of February, 1951. On the 31st of January 1951, a petition was moved on behalf of M. Abdul Hamid Nizami under section 23 of the Act for setting aside that order. On the same day, an applica tion was made, under sections 141/151, Civil Procedure Code, praying for an order suspending the operation of the Punjab Government order requiring the petitioner to deposit the security in question. A Special Bench of this Court by order dated 5th of February 1951 stayed the order as to deposit of security pending the hearing of the case. The petition under section 23 of the tact was, however, dismissed by another Special Bench of this Court on the 17th April 1951. On the 23rd of April 1951 M. Abdul Hamid Nizami tendered the security demanded by Government to the District Magistrate, Lahore; who refused to accept it. The same day a copy of the communication received by the District Magistrate, Lahore, from the Punjab Government was forwarded to 'M. Abdul Hamid Nizami informing him that the declaration of the " Nawa‑i‑Waqt " filed with the Government stood cancelled by virtue of the provisions of section 12 (3) of the Act. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 247 of 1951 was then put in this Court by M. Abdul Hamid Nizami under sections 141/151 Civil Proce dure Code read with Rule 20 of the rules framed by this Court under section 27 of the Act praying for an order specifying the time within which the deposit of the security should be made by the petitioner with the District Magistrate, Lahore, and for a direction to the District Magistrate to restore the position as it existed on 17th April, 1951 if the security is so deposited. The petition has been resisted on behalf of the Punjab Government. Section 27 of the Act empowers the High Court to frame rules to regulate the Procedure in the case of applications presented under section 23 of the Act, the amount of the costs thereof and the execution of orders passed thereon. It is further provided by this section that until such rules are framed, the practice of this Court in proceedings other than suits and appeals shall apply to such applications so far as may be applicable. The rules framed by this Court under section 27 are printed at pages 4 to 7 of Chapter 7‑A of Volume V, High Court Rules and Orders. The particular rule relied upon by the petitioner is Rule 20, which reads as follows :‑ " The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules and Orders relating to the execution of decrees shall be applicable to the execution of orders passed by the High Court on petitions under section 23 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931." Mr. Abdur Rahim on behalf of the petitioner has argued before us that this rule read with section 47 Civil Procedure Code and Order 21.; Rule 24 of the Civil Procedure Code authorises this Court to fix a date for the deposit of the security with the District Magistrate where the date originally, fixed for deposit by the Government has expired owing to a stay order being granted by this Court. On the contrary; it is contended on behalf of the Punjab Government that after the decision of the petition under section 23 of the Act this Court became functus officio and no jurisdiction now vests in this Court to pass the order prayed for. It is even urged that the stay order itself was passed without jurisdiction. The question whether this Court had the power to grant stay of the order requiring the deposit of security need not be decided as the petition can be disposed of on other grounds. Order 21, Rule 24, Civil Procedure Code, which has been invoked on behalf of the petitioner appears to have no bearing on the present petition. That rule provides inter alia that when a process is issued for the execution of a decree, a day shall be specified in the process on or before which it shall be executed. It is obvious that this Court has not issued any process for the execution of any order passed by it and, therefore, the reference to Rule 24 of Order 21 Civil Procedure Code is inapt. Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code also does not seem to cover the prayer in the present petition, as no question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of an order of this Court, which may be executable as a decree by virtue of section 27 of .the Act, is being agitated before us. It is clear that the order of the Punjab Government, requiring the deposit of security under section 7 (3) of the Act was not an order of this Court passed under section 27 of the Act such as could be executed by virtue of that section. Indeed, it would be open to the petitioner not to comply with that order if he so thought fit, with the result that the consequences contemplated by section 12 of the Act would follow. Reference was then made to section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This lays down that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. It has not‑ been made out how this section advances the case for the petitioner to any material extent. We have not been shown any provision which would justify us in extending the date for the deposit of the security in this case. The argument was then advanced that, as the date originally fixed by Government for the deposit had passed due to the stay order issued by this Court, it should be held that the petitioner was at liberty to put in the security with the District Magistrate, within a reasonable time of the disposal of the petition under section 23 of the Act, by this Court. In this connection, our attention was drawn to the fact that section 7 of the Act expressly declares that the notice to be issued by the Provincial Government under subsection (3) of that section must give an interval of at least ten days after the date of the issue of the notice for the deposit to be made. Learned counsel suggested that this ten days' interval should be allowed to him after the disposal of his petition by this Court. We are unable to accede to this contention. It is clear that the stay order granted by this Court, merely had the effect of postponing the date of deposit till the decision of the petition lodged under section 23 of the Act. It only meant presuming that the stay order was valid, that the petitioner would not incur any penalty under section 12 of the Act till such time as this Court had dealt with the matter finally. The petition was disposed of on the 17th of. April 1951, and it was clearly, therefore, the duty of the petitioner to deposit the security with the District Magistrate on the next working day, that is, the 18th of April, 1951. The stay order is not susceptible of any other interpretation. If the petitioner has misconceived the position, he had done so at his own risk and this Court is unable to help him. The petitioner really seeks to avoid the consequences of his default, which have ensued under section 12 of the Act, by means of this petition. This Court exercises a limited jurisdiction under the Press Emergency Powers Act and it is not shown to us that we have any jurisdiction to pass an order which would, in effect, avoid the consequences attaching to the petitioner's default under section 12 of the Act. It is clear, for instance, that this Court has no power to sit in judgment over the action of the Government as regards the amount of security demanded. In view of the special nature of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under the Act, we do not think the inherent powers of this Court under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code can be pressed into service by the petitioner. The result is that the petition fails 2nd is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances of this case, we make no orders as to costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.