VOID ORDERS VOID ORDERS By Ch. Manzoor Hussain, Advocate, Rawalpindi 1. The concept of void order has engaged the attention of Superior Forums in this Country on more than one occasion. Lengthy and conclusive pronouncements have been declared which adorn the pages of law reports. These legendary verdicts are guide for the scholars and jurists alike. It is imperative to find out the definition of a "Void Order" before tracing its historical perspective in the course of its growth in our jurisdiction. 2. In accordance with "Law Terms and Phrases" by Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Mokal, the word "void" is used when total lack of existence is intended to be conveyed. In the strictest sense, it means absolutely null, that is to say incapable of ratification. In "Warton's Law Lexicon", it is defined as an instrument of transaction nugatory to an extent that nothing can cure it. "A concise law Dictionary" puts it as of no legal effect; a nullity. The survey of all definitions manifestly show that a void order is one which has no legal footing to stand upon it. 3. "The first in the long line of pronouncements on this question by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is to be found in Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104. The Court held in this case that a void order was an order passed by an authority which did not have the jurisdiction to pass it and the jurisdiction was defined as power of the Authority concerned to pass the impugned order. Thus, an order passed by an Authority in excess of its powers was void and non‑existent". The result of such orders ~ is nullity and the superstructure raised on its foundation stands automatically demolished. The mala fide orders and those without hearing and wanting opportunity of show‑cause notice, fall in this category. 4. In Jamal Shah v. Election Commission (PLD 1966 SC 1), distinction between the orders of Regular Courts and Tribunals was made. The orders of regular Courts could be illegal without being void, whereas in the case of Tribunals, the orders, if illegal, were held to be void and similarly, the orders emanating from proceedings where the application of mind was lacking, were also held to be void. In Swaleh v. United Grain Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 79 it was suggested that the consequences of void orders have to be ignored, irrespective of the hardship to the innocent strangers. "It should be remembered that if an order be a nullity then every Court before whom it is brought is not only entitled but bound to ignore it". 5. The Supreme Court has not followed the observations made in Swaleh's case in its subsequent decisions. Ghulam Mohyuddin v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1964 SC 829, Ch. Altaf Hussain v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1965 SC 68 and Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Hussain and others PLD 1976 SC 729, are instances which can be cited to support this point. "It may be that though an order is without jurisdiction and a nullity, yet (a) it is not challenged by the person entitled to challenge it, (b) it is not challenged within the time allowed by law, or (c) the Court in its discretion refused to declare it a nullity. The question is what becomes of such an order? Is it to be treated as valid? As regards an order capable of producing legal consequences which is not challenged by the aggrieved party, it will, it appears remain operative as any other order". A judgment is incorrect if it is wrong in law or fact; it is void if it is pronounced by incompetent Tribunal (PLD 1960 SC 237). 6. "A void act must be distinguished from an illegal or irregular act. As seen above, a void act is an act without jurisdiction and is a nullity; an illegal or irregular act, on the other hand, is an act within jurisdiction and is not void". Again, an illegal act and an irregular act have also made distinction inasmuch as the later can be cured, whereas the former does not possess such a character. Therefore, illegalities and irregularities cannot be treated alike. 7. The status, effect and scope of void order was discussed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan at full length in Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari PLD 1997 SC 351. The apex Court having surveyed the case‑law on the point, held that a void order is not always to be struck down regardless of the consequences of such a decision, but that a void order must be struck down provided there is no statute or principle of law which would make it unjust or inequitable to strike it down. This qualification is very important and that is why, for example, a writ may be refused as against a void order if this would enable the petitioner, to circumvent the provisions of a statute or limitation. There is also ample authority on the proposition that a petitioner is estopped to challenge the void order from his conduct or on account of laches. 8. However, as pointed out by Mr. Justice (Retired) Dorab Patel, in his article, "The Concept of Void Orders in Our Jurisdiction", all in cases affecting the liberty of the subject, an order passed without hearing the person concerned must be set aside unless the statute has taken away such a right. Secondly, the rule of natural justice must always be followed when the provision in this respect is contained in the Constitution. Following the view in 'Ridge v. Boldwin' the learned Judge suggested that the consequences of void order may be re‑examined in the context of this judgment in the interest of harmony of law. The meanings of "Jurisdiction" of Courts, it was pointed out, was also enlarged by the eminent judges for good reasons and for better administration of justice. Finally, it was proposed that rights of third innocent parties with regard to the void orders may also be decided by the superior Courts. 9. The growth of law continues with the evolution and change in the Society coupled with socio‑economic needs. It is a natural phenomenon. The march of time goes on leaving its contours. The development of law shapes itself for the order of Society. The superior forms interpret the law for the proper administration of justice. The nature of 'Void Orders or its effects would continue to receive the attention of superior forums for the betterment of society backed by the sagacity and wisdom of jurists.