P L D 1977 Lahore 600 (PLP)

The petitioner is a publisher of a weekly Urdu Journal known as Peshrau, Rawalpindi. He did not publish any issue of his Weekly for two weeks in the month of August, 1973. When the matter was brought to the notice of the learned District Magistrate, he issued a notice Annex. "B" on 8-12-1975 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his declaration should not be declared as having become null and void under section 9(3) (it) of the West Pakistan Press and Publications Ordinance XXX of 1963 (hereinafter called the Ordinance). A reply in the form of Annex. "C" was filed in which the alleged default was denied. The matter came up for consideration on 5-1-1976 when the learned District Magistrate passed the following order:- "It has been noticed that the Urdu weekly Peshrau, Rawalpindi published only two issues in August, 1973 one of which is dated 31-8-1973 and the preceding issue (Istiqlal Number) is without date. Anyhow, there is a gap of more than two weeks in a calendar month which attracts section 9(3)(ii) of the Press Ordinance. Tile publisher/printer of the paper were served on show-cause notice and were asked to appear in person before the District Magistrate to explain their position vide this office No. 7695 M. C., dated 8-12-1975. It has been admitted by Mr. Sibtey Ahmad, Editor of the weekly who appeared on behalf of the publisher that a gap of more than two weeks in the publication of the paper occurred in the month of August, 1973. The printer of the weekly did not appear before me on the fixed date for hearing. This non-publication of the weekly for more than two weeks in a calendar month attracts the provisions of section 9(3)(11) and the declaration of said weekly thus became null and void."

2. The petitioner has come up in writ petition against the aforesaid order and proceedings to this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. I told the learned counsel that his client had a remedy of filing an appeal under section 48 of the Ordinance but his reply was that as the order impugned at the face of it was void and without jurisdiction, therefore. the remedy of appeal was no bar in the institution of this writ petition and that even otherwise the requisite Tribunal to hear appeals under section 49 had not so far been set up and, therefore, the remedy of appeal in the circumstances was not available. However he could not satisfy me as to whether an appellate Tribunal was to be constituted on institution of an appeal or in advance. The learned counsel insisted that I should decide the case on merits. It is on his insistence that I am expressing my views as hereinafter. Section 9 of the Ordinance reads as follows :-

9. Effect of non-publication of newspaper.- (1) (2) (3) Where a newspaper having been published is not published- (i) in the case of a daily newspaper, for sixteen days in a calendar month, (ii) in the case of a weekly newspaper, for two weeks in a calendar month. (iii) in the case of fortnightly newspaper, for one month, (iv) in the case of a monthly newspaper, for two months, (v) in the case of a quarterly newspaper, for six months, and (vi) in the case of a six-monthly newspaper for one year. The declaration made in respect of that newspaper shall become null and void, and the printer and the publisher shall make and subscribe a fresh declaration under section 7 before further printing or publishing the newspaper, and to every such fresh declaration the provisions of the two foregoing subsections shall, without prejudice to the provisions of this subsection, apply. (4) (5) A perusal of the aforesaid provision of law will show that if a weekly paper is not published for two weeks then its declaration becomes null and void. Order of the District Magistrate dated -5-1-1976 shows that it was admitted before him by Mr. Sibtey Ahmad, Editor of the weekly, that a gap of more than two weeks in the publication of the paper did occur in the month o August, 1973 There is no affidavit of Mr. Sibtey Ahmed to refute th above admission or factual position. In that view of the matter, it appears that the District Magistrate was justified on the basis of the aforesaid default to hold the declaration of the weekly paper as having become null and void.

4. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner argued, as pleaded in para. 3 of the writ petition, that his client had published two weekly issues in the calendar month of August, 1973. One was published on 17-8.1973 and the other on 31-8-1973. It was submitted that in the face of this situation since the minimum number of issues required to be published in a month viz. (according to him) two had been published, therefore, there was no default of the petitioner that respect. The contention has no merit and to say with respect to Warned counsel the case is not being approached from a correct angle. The real point to be seen is as to whether the newspaper was not published for two weeks in a calendar month. In other words it is the inaction and non-publication which constitutes the default and the case is to be approached from that and that prospective alone and not from the point of view that despite the aforesaid default and non-publication how many Issues still have been published, because the remaining published issues may no doubt sometimes be two, but if despite their publication there did remain default of not publishing the weekly for two weeks, the defaulter will fall within the clutches of law and his declaration will become null ant void. Holding accordingly. I see nothing wrong in the order of the learned District Magistrate, Rawalpindi with the result that this writ petition which has no merit is dismissed with costs.

5. Before pertaining with this case, I may mention that during the course of arguments a point arose as to whether the non-publication for two weeks should be in two consecutive weeks or alternate non-publication in intermittent or alternate weeks totalling two in aggregate will also constitute a default. My attention was drawn to Dr. Aijaz Hassan Qareshi and another v. The District Magistrate, Lahore P L D 1975 Lah. 859. where at page

863. Ataullah Sajjad, J. dealt with! reference to section 9(3) (ii) observed that, "this provision of law deals with' a. factual situation where a weekly paper is not published successively for twos weeks." As in the instant case there is no question of defaults in intermittent or alternate weeks, therefore, I leave this question open to be attended to in, some more appropriate case later. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.