PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 48
Present: Shakil Ahmad, J.
versus
PUNJAB BAR COUNCIL through Vice Chairman, etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 15954 of 2023, decided on 2.1.2024.
Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976--
----R. 46-B--Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, S. 13(2)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts. 25 & 199(1)(c)--Voter list-- Maintainability--Application for insertion of name in voter list--Rejected--Applicability of Rule 46-B--Efficacious remedy--Autonomous body--Punjab Bar Council (PBC) was an entirely autonomous body which had independent elections and generates its own funding without Government control and State does not had any financial or other interest and PBC did not perform any function in connection with affairs of Federation, a Province or a Local Authority--Rule 46-B is applicable throughout Province of Punjab on every voter of a Bar Association who transferred his vote from one Bar Association to other and petitioner alone had not been subjected to any discrimination by applicability of rule--The petitioner had not established a clear nexus between alleged discrimination suffered and provisions of Article 25 of Constitution--This Court was of considered view that instant petition was not maintainable even under Article 199(1)(c) of Constitution--An adequate and efficacious remedy is available to petitioner and undeniably same had not been availed by petitioner--Petition dismissed. [Para 5 & 6] B, C, D & E
PLD 2023 Lah. 313.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--
----Art. 199--Maintainability--A petition under Article 199 of Constitution is maintainable only if any body politic, corporate, or any authority performs public functions in connection with affairs of Federation, Provinces or Local Authority as contemplated under Article 199 of Constitution. [Para 5] A
2021 SCMR 425 ref.
Mr. Naeem Shahzad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Javed Imran Ranjha, Legal Advisor for Punjab Bar Council.
Date of hearing: 2.1.2024.
Order
Faryad Ali (petitioner herein) is impugning herein order dated 25.02.2023, whereby his request for adding his name in the voter list of Sialkot Bar Association by declaring Rule 46-B.(b) of Pakistan Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as void, was rejected by Chairman Executive Committee Punjab Bar Council (Respondent No. 3).
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner was enrolled as voter-member of Tehsil Bar Association, Sambrial on 01.03.2010 and subsequently he got transferred his vote from said Bar Association to District Bar Association, Sialkot on 10.05.2022 but his name was not inserted in the voter list of District Bar Association, Sialkot for the year 2023-24, whereupon he moved an application before Secretary Punjab Bar Council, Lahore on 17.02.2023 whereby he prayed that his name may be inserted in the voter list of District Bar Association, Sialkot and Rule 46-B of the Rules may be declared as illegal and unconstitutional. Said application was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on 25.02.2023, hence this petition.
3. Para-wise comments/reply has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 raising therein question of maintainability of instant petition in view of efficacious remedy of filing appeal under Section 13(2) of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Before dilating upon the merits of the instant case, moot point qua maintainability of instant petition is required to be resolved in the first place. It is by now a settled principle of law that a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the Constitution) is maintainable only if any body politic, corporate, or any authority performs public functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, Provinces or Local Authority as contemplated under Article 199 of the Constitution. In case “Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gilani v. Pakistan Bar Council through Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Building, Islamabad (2021 SCMR 425), Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing the point in issue resolved as under:
“............
..............
.......... However, a bare perusal of the 1973 Act reveals that neither the Provincial nor the Federal Government exercise any administrative, financial or other control over the affairs of the Pakistan Bar Council. Thus, neither the Pakistan Bar Council nor any of its committees can be regarded as persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, Provinces or Local Authority within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Accordingly, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of High Court.”
It was further observed in the case referred supra that Punjab Bar Council (PBC) is an entirely autonomous body which has independent elections and generates its own funding without Government control and the State does not have any financial or other interest and PBC does not perform any function in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or a Local Authority. It may further be observed that while placing reliance on the above hinted case law, this Court in case “Muratib Ali Alvi vs The Punjab Bar Council, Lahore through Chairman” (PLD 2023 Lahore 313) resolved the controversy qua the maintainability of writ petition in following terms:
8. Other than the Advocate General of Province being the ex-officio member and Chairman of the Punjab Bar Council, nothing in the Act suggests that any administrative or financial control is being exercised by the Federal or Provincial governments over the affairs of the Punjab Bar Council. Thus Punjab Bar Council is not performing any functions in connection with affairs of the Federation or Province or a local authority. Therefore, for the purpose of maintainability of this Constitutional petition, the status of the Punjab Bar Council will be same as that of the status of the Pakistan Bar Council as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani and Mirza Muhammad Nizakat Baig (supra).
9. The law settled in the afore-noted judgments by Hon’ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the Punjab Bar Council, which is also an autonomous private body without any Government control, though constituted under the Act, hence this Constitutional petition against Punjab Bar Council is not maintainable.
By placing reliance on the above hinted case laws it can conveniently be resolved that instant petition is not maintainable.
6. Looking the matter from yet another angle, it may be seen that petitioner’s grievance qua non-insertion of his name in the voter list of District Bar Association, Sialkot where he got transferred his vote on 10.05.2022, is concerning to Rule 46-B of the Rules. Petitioner has prayed also for declaring said rule as illegal and unconstitutional by asserting that this rule is against the norms of Article 25 of the Constitution and it has violated fundamental rights of the petitioner. In this regard, it is pointed out that Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees equality of citizens before the law and prohibits discrimination. In evaluating the petitioner’s version, it is required to ascertain whether the impugned rule, in its essence and application, violates the principles enshrined in Article 25 and other Articles relating to fundamental rights. Rule 46-B ibid is applicable throughout the Province of Punjab on every voter/member of a Bar Association who gets transferred his vote from one Bar Association to the other and petitioner alone has not been subjected to any discrimination by operation/applicability of the said rule. It is noted that the learned Legal Advisor of Punjab Bar Council has demonstrated that the rule in question was enacted with a legitimate objective and its application is not inherently discriminatory. The petitioner has not established a clear nexus between the alleged discrimination suffered and the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution. This Court is of the considered view that instant petition is not maintainable even under Article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioner despite repeated queries, remained unable to convince this Court qua relevancy of Article 25 of the Constitution. Looking the matter in view of objection raised by Respondent No. 2 qua maintainability of instant petition in view of availability of efficacious remedy in terms of Section 13(2) of the Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973, it may be observed that indeed an adequate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and undeniably same has not been availed by the petitioner and this Court is convinced that petition in hand is also liable to be dismissed on this ground too. Consequently, petition in hand is dismissed being incompetent.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed
0 comments:
Post a Comment