P L D 1956 Sind 49 (PLP)

The word "Central Government" or the "Provincial Govern ment" has not been defined in the Act, and it is for this Court to determine what the word "Central Government" means, and whether an Officer of the Central. Government also comes within the purview of "Central Government of Pakistan" or not. The word "Central Government" has been defined in the General Clauses Act read with the Pakistan (Adaptation of Laws) Order 1947, as the "Governor‑General". Obviously, the word "Central Government" in this section of the Act did not mean merely the Governor‑General. No accommodation is required for the Governor‑General person ally. He has got his own residence known as the "Governor General House". Some light no doubt is thrown on what is meant by the "Central Government" by a Perusal of the Government of India Act 1935. It is pertinent to note that the Government of India Act deals with the constitution of the Federal Executive, Federal Legislature, Federal Judiciary, Provincial Executive, Provincial Legislature and Provincial Judiciary, and the services in the employment of the Central as well as Provincial Governments. The very fact that the entire Act is known as the "Government of India Act" and along with other matters deals with services in the employment of the Central and Provincial Governments shows that the idea of Government includes officers subordinate to the Governor‑General or the Governor, as the case may be. The dictionary meaning of the word "Government" is "Governing power in a State" or the "Body of persons charged with the duty of governing". In the absence of anything to the contrary, there is no reason why a different meaning should be given to the word "Government" and used in section 2 of the Act. The words "Government established by law" have been defined in section 17 of the P. P. C. which runs as follows :‑ "The word 'Government' denotes the person or person authorised by law to administer executive government in the province or any province or in any part thereof". This section has been the subject of interpretation by various High Courts. The earliest case that I could lay m5, hands on is that of Mrs. Annie Besant v. Emperor (39 I L R Mad. 1085.). Officiating Chief Justice Sir Abdur Rahim observed as follows :‑ "A question has been raised as to the meaning of the phrase" the Government established by law In British India. Government denotes an established authority entitled and able to administer the public affairs of the country". A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a case reported in I L R 42 All. 233, observed as follows ‑ "We are of the opinion that the phrase 'Government established by law in British India' means the established authority which governs the country and administers its public affairs and includes the representatives to whom the task of Government is entrusted." Lastly, I may refer to a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in A I R 1932 Cal.

547. Their Lordships observed at page 548 "It appears to us that the 'Government established by law in British India' includes the executive power in action." Some light is also thrown on the point by some provisions of the Government of India Act; section 7 says: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised by the Governor‑General, either directly or through officers sub ordinate to him" I have already dealt with the scheme of the Government of India Act. After a careful consideration I have come to the conclusion that the word "Central Government" in the Act is used in its general sense, meaning thereby the entire body of officials who are charged with the duty of governing the country or a portion of the country. In this view of the matter, an officer of the Central Government would be included in the word "Central Government." It has been held in some cases that housing of a Govern ment servant is a public purpose. I may refer to the case of East Punjab reported in A I R 1952 at p. 55, Their Lord ships approvingly referred to earlier unreported cases in which it has been held that providing residential accommodation to a Professor of a Government College and to a Subordinate judge was a public purpose. It may, however, be noted that in the corresponding Acts in force in various provinces in India, there is no definition of a "public purpose." The Order of Requisition in this case was passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Administrator of Karachi in order to provide accommodation to Assistant Financial Adviser, to the Government of Pakistan. I, there fore, hold that the order of the Administrator, Karachi, dated 3rd April, 1951, is not ultra vires and is binding on the plaintiffs. I may note that this issue does not refer to the order of the Rent Controller, although, in fact, it is his order that is the basis of the suit. The Administrator of Karachi derequisi tioned some of the rooms in favour of the plaintiffs. But ignoring the phraseology of the issue, I have dealt with the order which really gave rise to this suit. Issue No. 2.‑"Are the plaintiffs entitled to sue"? Issue No. 5.‑"Is the suit as framed entertainable by this Honourable Court ? The plaintiffs are a Club, which is not registered. Order I rule 8, C. P. C. is, therefore, applicable; it says "Where there are numerous persons having the same in terest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. But the Court shall in such case give, at the plaintiff's expense notice of the institution of the suit to all such persons either by personal service, or, where from the number of persons or any other cause such service is not reasonably practicable by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct." The suit was filed through the Secretary of the Club, who put in an application for permission under Order I, rule 8, Q. P. C. The application came up before the Registrar who passed an order to .the effect that notices be published in the "Dawn" and the "Civil and Military Gazette." The plaintiffs, however, did not deposit the expenses and notices could not be published. When the case came up before me for final hearing on 19th March, 1953, the plaintiff's counsel made a fresh application under Order I rule 8 C. P. C. By my order of the same date, I rejected the application on the basis of the grounds mentioned therein. The result is that no action contemplated by Order I rule 8, C. P. C. has been given. The position, therefore, is that the suit has been filed by the Secretary on behalf of an unregistered Tattersalls Club, and the provisions of Order I‑rule 8 have not been complied with. In this state of things, the suit is incompetent. The issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 3.‑"Are the plaintiffs entitled to any of the reliefs asked for by them without having declared the order of the Rent Controller requisitioning the flat in suit as a nullity in law ? The issue as it stands must be answered in the affirmative. An order which is a nullity in law, need not be set aside. It can merely be ignored, and a party can Claim relief which he is entitled to on the basis that the order impugned has got no existence in law. I have already held under issue No. 1 that: the order of Rent Controller was perfectly competent and binding on the plaintiffs. Issue No. 6.‑"Is the suit barred by section 13 of the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act 1947 ?" Section 13 of the Act runs as follows :‑ "No order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court." So long an order of the Rent Controller or that of Administra tor of Karachi as an appellate authority is within the scope of his authority, it cannot be questioned because of this section. Having held that the orders of the Rent Controller and the Administrator of Karachi were intra vires, I cannot but hold that the suit is barred by section 13 of the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act 1947. Issue No. 4‑"Can this Hon'ble Court grant any of the reliefs as framed to the plaintiffs?" Issue No. 7.‑"To what reliefs if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?" ' Issue No. 8.‑"General". In view of my findings under issues No. 1 and 6, the suit must fail and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs Claimed. I accordingly dismiss the suit with costs. A. H. Suit dismissed.