1999 PLP 1046 (CLC)

(2) Where a Bar Council establishes a Benevolent Fund.‑‑ (a) if it be the Pakistan Bar Council, every Advocate of the Supreme Court borne on its roll, and if it be a Provincial Bar Council, every Advocate borne on its rolls shall pay to the Benevolent Fund, annually, monthly or at such other intervals as may be prescribed, such amount as his contribution to the Fund as may be determined by the Bar Council; (b) the moneys credited into the Fund shall be kept in such bank as may be prescribed; . (c) the Fund shall be utilised, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Bar Council, for‑‑ (i) the relief of Advocates an their families (ii) giving financial relief to the families of deceased Advocates; (iii) making grants to Advocates on special occasions; and (iv) defraying expenditure in respect of the management of the Fund. (3) The provisions of subsection (4) of section 34 shall apply to contributions required to be made to the Benevolent Fund under clause (a) of subsection (2) as if such contributions were an annual fee or instalment of fee payable under that section."

6. Needless to over‑emphasize the provision contained in subsection (4) of section 34 unequivocally declares that such provisions shall apply to contributions required to be made to the Benevolent Fund under clause (a) of subsection (2) as if such contribution were an annual fee or instalment of fee payable under that section. Interestingly petitioner has been contributing towards the annual fee prescribed by the Pakistan Bar Council payable to the Provincial Bar Council regularly surprisingly he is not inclined to contribute towards the Benevolent Fund of the Provincial Bar Council on the erroneous view that as an Advocate of the Supreme Court he is not liable to make such contribution. For this proposition, learned counsel submitted that after his enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court Provincial Bar Council should have corrected its Roll of Advocates by striking out his name but at the same time he is adamant to avail of all benefits, privileges, rights and concessions available to an Advocate of the High Court. In fact the stand adopted by the petitioner is self- contradictory and mutually destructive as on the one hand he wants to fully utilise the rights and privileges admissible to an Advocate maintained by Provincial Bar Council and on the other hand he does not feel inclined to perform his statutory obligation by contributing to the Benevolent Fund established by the Provincial Bar Council for the relief of Advocates and the' welfare of their families at the time of need. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner when he says that as Advocate of the High Court he is entitled to take a pupil for training purposes and to certify such puiplage and also to take part in the election process for the Provincial Bar Council as well as the Pakistan Bar Council without the payment of contribution towards Benevolent Fund. Indeed he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

7. The entire argument of Mr. Dacca Wala proceeds on the assumption that under the scheme of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, the Pakistan Bar Council and the Provincial Bar Councils deal with different categories of Advocates, are completely autonomous of each other and Advocates enrolled by either of them have no connection with the other. A reading of the Act as a whole, however, shows that this assumption is entirely unfounded. The Pakistan Bar Council is not an entity exclusively dealing with the affairs of Advocates of the Supreme Court as suggested by the petitioner. It is primarily a supervisory body over the Provincial Bar Councils. In the first place it may be seen that under section 11, the Pakistan Bar Council is not elected by Advocates of the Supreme Court, but by members of the Provincial Bar Councils i.e. indirectly by all Advocates practising at any level throughout the country. Under section 17(2) its funds are drawn through receipt of one‑third of the enrolment fee payable by every Advocate for enrolment as an Advocate of the subordinate Courts and that of the High Courts at the time of applying for such enrolment to the Provincial Bar Council. The quantum of fee required for such enrolment to enable a person to appear before the High Court or subordinate Courts is also required to be determined by the Pakistan Bar Council under section 34 of the Act. The Pakistan Bar Council also acts as an appellate authority against the decisions of Provincial Bar Councils in matters relating to enrolment of and disciplinary proceedings against Advocates at all levels. Under its rule making power it can lay down the standard of professional etiquettes in respect of all Advocates. It is, therefore, patently erroneous to assume that such Council is exclusively concerned with the Advocates of the Supreme Court and upon being enrolled as such an Advocate ceases to have any connection with a Provincial Council.

8. Coming to the specific provisions regarding maintenance of Roll of Advocates it is indeed true that section 23 requires the Pakistan Bar Council to maintain a Roll of Advocates entitled to practise before the Supreme Court. There is, however, no provision in the Act stipulating that upon enrolment as Advocate of the Supreme Court a person's name would be automatically removed from the Roll of Advocates of the. High Court maintained by a Provincial Bar Council under section

24. Under sections 38 and 39 an authenticated copy of the Roll of Advocates of the High Court as well as other Advocates maintained by Provincial Bar Council is also required to be sent to the Pakistan Bar Council and the latter is required to prepare a common Roll of all Advocates practising at different levels in the county. Moreover, it is equally important to keep in view that at the time of filing of this petition there was no statutory provision requiring Pakistan Bar Council to maintain a Roll of the Advocates of the Supreme Court. It may be mentioned that section 23 of the Act was omitted from the statute book by the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (XVI of 1985) w.e.f. 2‑3‑1985. It was re inserted in its present form only through the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils (Amendment) Act, 1987 (VIII of 1987) w.e.f. 25‑8‑1987. Therefore, we find petitioner's contention to the effect that merely upon, enrolment as an Advocate of Supreme Court he severed all his connections with the Provincial Bar Council to be patently misconceived.

9. There is another aspect of the case. In case the argument of the petitioner is accepted that by process of correcting the Roll of Advocates maintained by the Provincial Bar Council his name should have been struck out he being an Advocate of the Supreme Court this may give rise to serious complications and many absurdities. In the first place all senior counsel enrolled as Advocates of the Supreme Court may not be entitled to participate in the election process of Provincial Bar Council and on the other hand they may not even be represented in the affairs of Pakistan Bar Council. 1n fact the point canvassed at the Bar is unique and unrepresented as to the best of our knowledge no other counsel throughout the country has raised such point seeking immunity from payment of contribution towards the Benevolent Fund established by Provincial Bar Council. Should the petitioner prefer to surrender the membership of the Provincial Bar Council it was always open to him to send such intimation to the Provincial Bar Council who could not of its own strike off F his name from the Roll of Advocates as such act might not have the backing of law. Probably petitioner himself would have questioned the vires of such act before a Court of law, which would be difficult to defend.

10. Preliminary objections taken to the maintainability of this petition having not been pressed we do not feel inclined to dilate upon such aspects as we are satisfied that in law petition of the instant nature can otherwise be entertained.

11. For the aforesaid facts and reasons the petition is completely devoid of any force and wholly misconceived. In fact at the conclusion of the hearing petition was dismissed by a short order simultaneously directing remittance of G the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to an interim order passed by a Bench of this Court to the Sindh Bar Council. Aforesaid are the detailed reasons of the conclusion. H.B.T./S‑192/K Petition dismissed