1982 PLP 747 (SCMR)
TARIQ MASOOD — Petitioner Versus SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 747 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TARIQ MASOOD — Petitioner Versus SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 747 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 747 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 747 (SCMR) (TARIQ MASOOD — Petitioner Versus SUPREME COURT ENROLMENT COMMITTEE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 14th March, 1982.
- ---R. 108‑Enrolment as Advocate of Supreme Court‑Recording of reasons for decision‑High Court holding statutory instruments having vested Chief Justice and Judges of High Court with authority and discretion to deckle grant or otherwise of fitness certificates in their wisdom, no reasons required to be stated nor advisable in circum stances‑Chairman of Provincial Bar Council and a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court also expressing same view and further opining that Enrolment Committee being a domestic forum not proper to expect or require it to record reasons for its decision to refuse or defer grant of certificate‑No occasion in circumstances, held, arises to interfere with decision of High Court passed in writ jurisdiction.
- M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee of that Court, to defer his case for grant of certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court for one year. The petitioner after completing five years' practice as an Advocate of the High Court, had applied for the certificate, whereupon be, along with many other similar applicants, had been interviewed by the Committee. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Committee should have either granted him the certificate as he suffered from no disqualification, or given reasons for deferring his case, on this basis, he challenged the decision of the Committee in the Constitutional jurisdiction but the same was dismissed. He preferred an Intra‑Court Appeal but the same, too, failed on C‑10‑1981. He now seeks leave to appeal.
- The Chairman of the provincial Bar Council and Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, a Senior Advocate of this Court, whose opinions had been sought by the I.C. A. Bench, had also expressed the same views. They had, further opined that the Committee being a domestic forum it was not proper expect or require it to record express reasons for its decision to refuse o defer the grant of the certificate.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-10-1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in I.-C. A. No. 238 of 1981).
R. 108-Enrolment as Advocate of Supreme Court-Recording of reasons for decision-High Court holding statutory instruments having vested Chief Justice and Judges of High Court with authority and discretion to deckle grant or otherwise of fitness certificates in their wisdom, no reasons required to be stated nor advisable in circum stances-Chairman of Provincial Bar Council and a Senior Advocate of Supreme Court also expressing same view and further opining that Enrolment Committee being a domestic forum not proper to expect or require it to record reasons for its decision to refuse or defer grant of certificate-No occasion in circumstances, held, arises to interfere with decision of High Court passed in writ jurisdiction. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Lahore High Court to interfere with the decision of the Supreme Court Enrolment Committee of that Court, to defer his case for grant of certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court for one year. The petitioner after completing five years' practice as an Advocate of the High Court, had applied for the certificate, whereupon be, along with many other similar applicants, had been interviewed by the Committee. The grievance of the petitioner was that the Committee should have either granted him the certificate as he suffered from no disqualification, or given reasons for deferring his case, on this basis, he challenged the decision of the Committee in the Constitutional jurisdiction but the same was dismissed. He preferred an Intra‑Court Appeal but the same, too, failed on C‑10‑1981. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The I.‑C. A. Bench of the High Court, after examining the relevant legal provision, held that ; "The statutory instruments vest the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court with the authority and discretion to decide in their wisdom the grant or otherwise of the fitness certificates. No reasons were required to be stated, nor, was‑1hat advisable in the circumstances." The Chairman of the provincial Bar Council and Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, a Senior Advocate of this Court, whose opinions had been sought by the I.C. A. Bench, had also expressed the same views. They had, further opined that the Committee being a domestic forum it was not proper expect or require it to record express reasons for its decision to refuse o defer the grant of the certificate.
3. We have heard the petitioner but are not persuaded to agree the there is any occasion to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.