2005 PLP 1025 (CLC)

Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who is before the Court has to obtain all the copies in his own name. However, he can avail the facility provided by law to engage some attorney or agent for doing the needful. In a case reported as Reference No. 1 of 1997 by President, AJ&K PLD 978 SC (AJ&K) 37 it was laid down as follows:‑‑ ".... This is an elementary principle that if an Act or rule prescribes a particular method of performance of an act, the act should be performed according to that method alone or not at all. " In a case reported as Azad Government and others v. Faqir Hussain Shah and another 2004 SCR 23 the learned late Chief Justice repeated the aforementioned principle in the following words:‑‑ "It is a celebrated principle of law that if a thing is to be done in a particular way, it should be done in that way and manner as prescribed or should not be done at all. "

5. In another case titled State v. Naseer Ahmed and another 2004 SCR 104 while drafting the judgment, the aforesaid principle was iterated by me in the following words:‑‑ .."... This is now a universal principle of law that when any act is required to be done in a particular way it must be done according to that way or not at all. " In the same authority I also laid down as follows:‑‑ "... It is the requirement of rules that copies must be obtained in the name of State by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case the copies have not been obtained by the Advocate‑General or any other person authorized in this behalf, therefore, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with: This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, is not competent. "

6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misconceived that as Sakhawat Ali under the private arrangement made by the Department is acting as Perokar of P. W. D., therefore, any copy obtained by him can be utilized by the Department along with the petition filed by any other officer of the Department before this Court. This argument, as said earlier, has no force because under rules the petitioner who files petition is required to file its four copies along with the mandatory documents for the adjudication of the cause before this Court through petition for leave to appeal. In the present case the petition has been filed by the Azad Government through the Chief Secretary. Copies of the impugned judgment and memo. of writ petition have not been obtained by the Chief Secretary either personally or through his recognized attorney or agent who may be even an Advocate, if was duly appointed so prior to filing of the petition for leave to appeal. The petition has also been filed on behalf of the Secretary and the Chief Engineer of Public Works Department. Even Sakhawat Ali, so‑called Perokar, has not obtained copies of relevant documents for the petitioners which have been utilized by them in preferring the instant petition for leave to appeal before this Court. The said Perokar obtained copies for Deputy Director Stores P.W.D., therefore, such copies do not fulfil the requirement of law. In a case reported as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13, an objection was raised in the following words:‑‑ "(5) During the progress of the appeals Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, the learned counsel for the respondents, took exception to the maintainability of the petitioner for leave to appeal, inter alia, on the ground that the petition was instituted by Sardar Rafique Mehmood, Additional Advocate‑General who was not authorized to act on behalf of the Government. According to the learned counsel the Vakalatnama authorizing Sardar Rafique Mehmood to institute the petition for leave to appeal was signed by Sardar Aftab Ahmed Khan, the Law Secretary of the time, without any authority as he had no directions from the Government to file any appeal or petition for leave to appeal." The appeal filed on the basis of Vakalatnama signed by the Law Secretary was subsequently validated by obtaining approval from the Government Even that approval was rejected by the Supreme Court in the following words:‑‑ "(9) Can the approval order now made by the Government validate the appeal, we may here record our appreciation for Sardar Rafique Mehmood who had very rightly conceded that the approval order referred to above would not validate his act in filing the petition for leave to appeal because after the period of limitation a right had accrued to the respondent which cannot now be snatched away from him." After this judgment, the Government subsequently effected amendment in the relevant law and authorized the Law Minister and in his absence the Law Secretary under certain conditions to accord sanction for filing appeals before the higher Courts on behalf of Government.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners under the mistaken belief that if the copy of relevant document is obtained by any person/ representative of the Department, that can be utilized by any other person who was party to the litigation but has not obtained the same personally to agitate the cause in appellate forum for the benefit of the Department. In a case titled Habibullah v. Government of Punjab and others PLD 1980 Lah. 337, a decision which was required to be taken in a meeting under law, was taken by all the members through circulation of the paper. This practice was not approved by the High Court. The disapproval was recorded in the following words:‑ "... It is now firmly established that when law provides doing of a particular thing in a particular way, all other modes of doing it are prohibited. "

8. In a case reported as Azad Government and another v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi 2002 SCR 302, the late Chief Justice while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal observed as follows:‑‑ "... Rule 3 of Order XIII postulates that the petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of his petition for leave to appeal and the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or the application before the High Court but in the instant case the Government or none of its representatives lodged their petition for leave to appeal along with the judgment sought to be appealed from as the copy of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from shows that it was obtained by one Syed Zahoor‑ul‑Hassan Gillani who appears to be totally alien to the proceedings in question."

9. The aforesaid view was subsequently approved by this Court in a case reported as State v. Naseer Ahmed and another 2004 SCR 104 in the following manner:‑‑ " .. Under Order XIII, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, petition for leave to appeal is required to be accompanied by the judgment and order sought to be appealed from along with the grounds of appeal before the High Court. It is the requirement of rules that copies must be obtained in the name of State by a person duly authorized in this behalf. In the present case the copies have not been obtained by the Advocate‑General or any other person authorized in this behalf, therefore, the mandatory provisions have not been complied with. This petition for leave to appeal, therefore, is not competent."

10. In a recent case titled Deputy Inspector‑General of Police and another v. Lal Khan Civil P.L.A. No.87 of 2004 decided on 10‑1‑2005 it was observed that legally the copies of the impugned judgment should have been obtained by the petitioners in their own names either personally or through their attorney or Advocate, whereas the copies had been obtained by the P.D.S.P. through Raja Muhammad Arif Khan. It was observed that as the copies were obtained by a stranger, therefore, the same could not be used for availing the appellate jurisdiction of this Court the petition for leave to appeal was, therefore dismissed.

11. In another latest case titled Secretary Home and another v. Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi Civil P.L.A. No.172 of 2004 decided on 10‑1‑2005 it was observed that the copies which were appended with the memorandum of petition for leave to appeal were obtained by a Prosecutor of the Police Department through some Muhammad Matloob, whereas under law either the petitioners should have obtained the copies in their own name or through their attorney or the Advocate duly authorized to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court Rules. It was, therefore, held that the callous attitude adopted by the petitioners was sufficient for the dismissal of their petition for leave to appeal.

12. In view of above case‑law as the instant petition for leave to appeal has not been filed properly by the petitioners who have come before this Court, therefore, this petition lacking the mandatory requirements of the Supreme Court Rules is not maintainable. The same, therefore, stands dismissed. H.B.T./142/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.