1969 PLP 946 (SCMR)

Mahboob Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehrajuddin Chaudhury, Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing : 16th October 1967. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This petition came up for hearing before us on the 13th April, 1967, when upon a statement from learned counsel appearing in the case that lie had instruction not to press the petition the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the petitioner thereafter put in an application for restoration of the petition on the ground that he had given no such instruc tions either to the Attorney on the record or to the learned Counsel appearing in the case. This petition was fixed for hearing today on notice to the petitioner, his attorney on the record and the learned counsel who appeared for him on the ‑last occasion. Unfortunately the learned counsel is ill and confined in a hospital. The Authority appears and states that he did not instruct counsel to withdraw appeal but it was the decision of the learned counsel himself which he intimated to the Court: ‑The learned counsel in his explanation submitted to this Court on the 29th of September 1967, states that when he filed the petition he had clearly given the petitioner to understand that he was doing it as an accommoda tion on the ground of his personal acquaintance, but that he would not put in appearance in support of the petition in Court, lie was assured by the petitioner that he would be under no obligation to do so. In the circumstances, when the petition was fixed for hearing and the petitioner, who had taken away the papers both from him and from the Attorney, could not be contacted, he and the Attorney decided that best course was to withdraw the petition." Since counsel is ill we direct that a subsequent date should be fixed upon notice to learned counsel and the Attorney concerned for considering as to whether any action should be taken against them. But upon the clear admission contained in the letter of the learned counsel and the statement of the Attorney we are satisfied that the withdrawal of the petition was not under instructions of the petitioner. We have, accordingly, restored the petition and heard the petitioner in person on the merits of his case. The petition for special leave to appeal was filed to challenge the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in a writ petition which was filed to question the validity of the last elections held in November, 1966, for constituting the various bodies of the West Pakistan Bar Council. The result of the election was announced on the 13th of December 1966, and the petitioner has conceded before us that the irregularities complained of by him did not affect the result of his election, for, he had lost by an overwhelming majority. He, however, contends that he has filed this petition on a question of principle, for, according to him the Bar Court Rules under which the election was held were themselves ultra vires by reason, of the provisions of section 8 of the Bar Council Act, and therefore, the entire election was a nullity. The High Court has held ‑ that the rules framed there under were not ultra vires and further that the riles were not invalid merely because they were not published in the official Gazette. The requirement of publication in the official Gazette was held to be merely directory. The petitioner has not been able to advance any argument against the reasons given by the High Court which appear to us to be cogent and substantial. In any event, since the petitioner could not, upon his own showing, have succeeded in this election the questions raised by him, so far as he is concerned, are purely academic. This Court is not prepared to launch upon a mere academic exercise In the circumstances we see no sufficient reason to grant leave to appeal in this matter. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.