P L D 1975 Lahore 124 (PLP)

This petition under Article 201 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by Mr. Sher Muhammad Chaudhry an Advocate of the High Court, seeking a declaration that the order dated the 17th of December 1973 passed by Mr. M. B. Zaman, Advocate-General, Punjab, in his capacity as the Returning Officer for the Punjab Bar Council Election, whereby he rejected his nomination papers for the ensuing election to the Punjab Bar Council from Rawalpindi District, is without lawful authority and consequently of no legal effect.

2. The question which arises for determination is whether the Returning Officer could reject the nomination papers of the petitioner on the ground that he was not practising generally in the District, although his name was entered on the Provincial Roll as practising generally in that District. Section 55 of the Act empowers the Pakistan Bar Council to make rules to provide, for inter alia "(a) the manner in which the election of members of a Bar Council shall be held and the manner in which results of election shall be published." The Federal Government was empowered to make Bar Council (First Elections) Rules, 1973. Sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Rules reads as follows :-- "3.-(() The Chairman, after ascertaining the number of Advocates practising generally in a district and entered on the Provincial roll from that district on the 31-7-1973, shall publish in the official Gazette." The list was published in the official Gazette as contemplated by sub rule (1) (a). By notification dated the 3rd of November 1973 the dates as required under the said Rules for filing the claims and objections, for the hearing and disposing of the same and for publishing the final list of the Advocates were fixed. If any person had the objection to the petitioner's name being entered on the list as an Advocate practising generally at Rawalpindi, he could do so before the 15th of November 1973. No such objection was filed and consequently final list was published on the 29th of November 1973. Since under the law an opportunity had been afforded for filing the objections before the election programme was issued, no objection to the nomination papers of the petitioner on the question that he was not practising generally in that District could be made. The Returning Officer could reject the nomination papers of the petitioner on any ground warranted by law other than that he was not practising generally in that District. It appears that the Legislature also intended that if any one wanted to raise such objection he could do so at the earlier stage and in no case after the number of the members for the purposes of giving representation to districts is determined. The -representation under the Act is given to the Districts and the number of members of the Provincial Bar Council depends on the number of members to be elected from each District. Suppose in the final list published under clause (d) of sub-rule (3), number of Advocates practising generally in a District is 50 and on that basis the Advocate-General has notified that one member is to be elected from the District. Can he in respect of an Advocate, who may have submitted his nomination paper for election from that district, reject his nomination paper on the ground that he is not practising generally there? If it were competent, he would by doing so reduce the number of Advocates practising in the District to less than 50 and the election of any member from that District in that situation would become questionable. 1f he is the only candidate for election from that District, the District itself will be disfranchised and the Provincial Bar Council itself will not be properly constituted. To obviate all such, anomalies the irresistible inference is that if any objection is to be raised as to the question that an Advocate was not practising generally in the District, it has to be made on the date which was notified under rule 3(1)(c). In this view of the matter, the order of the Returning Officer is without lawful authority.

3. The Writ Petition is accepted and the order of the Advocate- General is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the petitioner is a candidate from Rawalpindi District. There shall be no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted.