1984 PLP 1555 (SCMR)
Malik NAWAB ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus QAISER ALI and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1555 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Malik NAWAB ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus QAISER ALI and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1555 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1555 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1555 (SCMR) (Malik NAWAB ALI BHATTI‑‑Petitioner Versus QAISER ALI and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑Art. 185 131 Punjab local government ordinance (V1 of 1979), S.11 Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, Chap. XII‑ Election to District Council‑‑Leave to Appeal‑‑ Granted to examine question whether an Advocate can contest election for a seat in District Council meant for peasants.
- Mian Muhammad Yasin Khan Wattoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, are that Nawab Ali petitioner was elected as a Member of the Zila Council Sahiwal on 12‑12‑1979 against special interest seat namely, a peasant. Subsequently in 1982 the above Zila Council was bifurcated into two separate district councils i.e. District Council Sahiwal and District Council Okara. The election of the Chairmen/Vice‑Chairmen in District Council Okara was held on 11‑8‑1982 and the petitioner was elected as Vice‑Chairman. Qaisar Ali respondent No.l filed a writ petition against the original election of the petitioner to the membership of District Council Sahiwal on the ground that he was, in fact, an Advocate and was not, therefore, entitled to contest the election for the Peasant's Seat. The writ petition was accepted by the High Court vide its judgment, dated 6‑2‑1983, with the following observation.
- "The canons of professional conduct and etiquette of Advocates found in Chapter XII of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, provide by rule 175 that 'an Advocate should not as a general rule carry on any other profession or business, or be an active partner in or a salaried official or servant in connection with any such profession or business.' Section 55, clause (p) authorises the Pakistan Bar Council to make rules to provide for 'the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by Advocates' and serious breaches of professional conduct has been treated under section 41 of the Act to be a ground for proceeding against the Advocates. As against these requirements of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed there under governing the petitioner, the definition of peasant is as follows:‑‑
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976 provide that an Advocate should not, as a general rule, carry on any other profession or business, it does not necessarily mean that a person actually cultivating his own land or for that matter, doing any other business and is not, in fact, doing so. He submitted that it might, at the most, constitute a reason for action against him under the relevant Rules for breach of professional conduct and he might even be removed from the rolls but his being an Advocate does not detract from the fact that he is actually pursuing another profession as well and does not deprive him of his right to contest election for a seat in the District Council meant for peasants.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ This Petition for Leave to Appeal by Malik Nawab Ali is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 6‑2‑1982, accepting the writ petition of Qaisar Ali respondent No.l in an election matter.
2. The facts giving rise to the petition, briefly, are that Nawab Ali petitioner was elected as a Member of the Zila Council Sahiwal on 12‑12‑1979 against special interest seat namely, a peasant. Subsequently in 1982 the above Zila Council was bifurcated into two separate district councils i.e. District Council Sahiwal and District Council Okara. The election of the Chairmen/Vice‑Chairmen in District Council Okara was held on 11‑8‑1982 and the petitioner was elected as Vice‑Chairman. Qaisar Ali respondent No.l filed a writ petition against the original election of the petitioner to the membership of District Council Sahiwal on the ground that he was, in fact, an Advocate and was not, therefore, entitled to contest the election for the Peasant's Seat. The writ petition was accepted by the High Court vide its judgment, dated 6‑2‑1983, with the following observation. ..it suffices to say that there is a clear declaration of law by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan that the position of a practising lawyer is incompatible with his engaging himself in cultivation and for that reason he cannot while practising as a lawyer claim himself to be one engaged personally in cultivating the land and thereby qualified to contest an election on the reserved seat of peasants." Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed the present Petition. The judgment relied upon by the High Co!1rt was delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No.682/80 the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:‑‑ "The canons of professional conduct and etiquette of Advocates found in Chapter XII of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, provide by rule 175 that 'an Advocate should not as a general rule carry on any other profession or business, or be an active partner in or a salaried official or servant in connection with any such profession or business.' Section 55, clause (p) authorises the Pakistan Bar Council to make rules to provide for 'the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by Advocates' and serious breaches of professional conduct has been treated under section 41 of the Act to be a ground for proceeding against the Advocates. As against these requirements of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the rules framed there under governing the petitioner, the definition of peasant is as follows:‑‑ "Peasant means a person who is owner of not more than five Acres of agricultural land and engages himself personally in th4 cultivation of land." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the word 'engages' when used with reference to a profession or calling implies even occasional or casual involvement. The word 'personally' means 'ii person not through an agent'. It has not the extended connotation o the expression 'self‑cultivation' which could mean cultivation through a servant, a licensee or a family member." The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that merely because the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976 provide that an Advocate should not, as a general rule, carry on any other profession or business, it does not necessarily mean that a person actually cultivating his own land or for that matter, doing any other business and is not, in fact, doing so. He submitted that it might, at the most, constitute a reason for action against him under the relevant Rules for breach of professional conduct and he might even be removed from the rolls but his being an Advocate does not detract from the fact that he is actually pursuing another profession as well and does not deprive him of his right to contest election for a seat in the District Council meant for peasants.
3. The matter needs consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,
000. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents. S.Q. Leave granted