2000 PLP 2443 (YLR)
Sheikh JAN MUHAMMAD, ADVOCATE, LODHRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ALTAF, ADVOCATE, BAR ASSOCIATION, LODHRAN and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 2443 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Shafqat Khan Abbasi, Chairman, Khawar Mehmood, Rao Liaquat Ali Khan and Zafar Ahmad Chishti, Members |
| Parties | Sheikh JAN MUHAMMAD, ADVOCATE, LODHRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ALTAF, ADVOCATE, BAR ASSOCIATION, LODHRAN and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 2443 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 2443 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Shafqat Khan Abbasi, Chairman, Khawar Mehmood, Rao Liaquat Ali Khan and Zafar Ahmad Chishti, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 2443 (YLR) (Sheikh JAN MUHAMMAD, ADVOCATE, LODHRAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ALTAF, ADVOCATE, BAR ASSOCIATION, LODHRAN and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Nazir for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 2000.
- Sheikh JAN MUHAMMAD, ADVOCATE, LODHRAN‑‑‑Petitioner
- Chaudhry MUHAMMAD ALTAF, ADVOCATE, BAR ASSOCIATION, LODHRAN and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
- ‑‑‑‑R. 5.11(i) & (xii)‑‑‑Memorandum of Association, 1981, Arts. 5(d) & 45‑‑‑Election petition‑‑‑Election of returned candidate had been challenged by the unsuccessful candidate on ground that Election Board had not complied with the instructions issued by Punjab Bar Council and had allowed voters to cast their votes without asking for production of "Identity Cards" issued to them by Punjab Bar Council and that Election Board had allowed certain Advocates to cast their votes at place L' who were not voters/members of the said place but were voters/members of places "M" and "B"‑‑ Returned candidate who resisted the election petition had produced photo copy of undertaking given by the contesting candidates in which it was agreed that condition of identity cards issued by Punjab Bar Council was waived‑‑‑Such undertaking being against spirit of R.5.11(xii) of Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 and instructions issued by Punjab Bar Council at time of polling parties could not be permitted to bypass the rules and instructions‑‑‑Non production of identity cards was glaring irregularity and illegality committed by Election Board and due to said act of Election Board, certain persons were allowed to cast their votes at place "L" who were not holding their voter membership thereat‑‑‑Said persons/Advocates were not competent to cast their votes and to become voters/members of place "L ", without filing declaration which was necessary under the Rules‑‑‑Any act required to be done in a particular way had to be done in that manner and not in any other manner‑‑‑Election Board was not justified to allow persons/advocates to cast their votes at place "L" who were voters/members of places "B" and "M "‑‑‑ Election result was set aside with the direction that Election Board be constituted for holding re polling.
- 1. Sheikh Jan Muhammad petitioner has filed the present Election Petition challenging the election result pertaining to the Office of General Secretary, District Bar Association, Lodhran. The elections were held on 15‑1‑2000 in which respondent No.1, Chaudhry Muhammad Altaf, Advocate was declared as successful candidate by a margin of 7 votes. Respondent No. l got 55. votes whereas the petitioner got 48 votes. Thus, the Chairman, Election Board declared Chaudhry Muhammad Altaf, respondent No. l as a successful candidate by a margin of 7 votes. The petitioner contended that the election for the District Bar Association, Lodhran was conducted in which the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 and the Memorandum of Association, 1981 were violated. The petitioner contended that the Election Board has not complied with the instructions issued by the Punjab Bar Council. and allowed the voters to cast their votes without asking for the production of Identify Cards issued to them by the Punjab Bar Council. The petitioner also contended that the Election Board has allowed certain persons to cast their votes at Lodhran who were not voters/members of the District Bar Association, Lodhran. The petitioner has submitted a chart Annexure ' A' containing the names of 12 votes, out of which the Advocates mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 8, namely, Rana Abdul Qayyum, Mr. Ubaid‑ur‑Rehman, Mr. Allah Bakhsh, Malik Allah Nawaz, Mr. Muhammad Amin, Ch. M. Abid Saleem, Mr. Khadim Murtaza and Mr. Ejaz Hussain Baluch have shown their place of business at Bahawalpur and Mr. Mukhtar Masood at Serial No. 9 has shown his place of business at Multan and these persons have also cast their votes at Lodhran. They were not the eligible voters of the District Bar Association, Lodhran but the Chairman, Election Board has wrongly allowed them to cast their votes at Lodhran. The petitioners contended that the Advocates mentioned at Serial Nos. 10 to 12 in the chart, namely, Ch. Rustam Ali, Rao Liaquat Ali and Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad, were the Members of the Election Board, who conducted the election at Duniapur but their place of business was Lodbran. The petitioner further contended that some of the voters have cast their votes at Bahawalpur and subsequently at Lodhran, which has badly affected the result of the petitioner.
- 3. The office was directed to scrutinize the chart (Annexure ' A') submitted by the petitioner and also to determine the place of voter membership of 12 Advocates mentioned in the chart. The office has scrutinized the chart. After scrutiny of the chart (Annexure 'A') it was found that Messrs ‑Rana Abdul Qayyum (Serial No.l), Allah Bakhsh son of Haji Piran Ditta (Serial No.3), Malik Allah Nawaz (Serial No.4), Sh. M. Abid Saleern (Serial No.6) and Khadim Murtaza (Serial No.7) are having their place of voter membership at Bahawalpur, whereas the person namely Mr. Mukhtar Ahmad mentioned at Serial No.9 is having his place of voter membership at Multan. The other Advocates namely, Mr. Ubaid‑ur‑Rehman (Serial No.2), Mr. Muhammad Amin (Serial No.5), Mr. Ejaz Hussain Baluch (Serial No.8), Ch. Rustam Ali (Serial No.10), Rao Liaquat Ali (Serial No.11) and Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad (Serial No. 12) having their place of voter membership at Lodhran. Thus, out of these 12 persons, six persons were not having their place of voter membership at Lodhran, which means that these six persons were voter members of Bahawalpur and Multan etc. They were not the valid voters of the District Bar Association, Lodhran as they have not changed their place of voter membership from the Punjab Bar Council. Hence for all intents and purposes they were not the eligible voters of District Bar Association, Lodhran in term of Article 45 of the Memorandum of Association, 1981.
- "An Advocate who is, or becomes, member of more than one Bar Association, shall before 31st December from the date of publication of the Rule‑‑‑
- No Advocate shall tile a ‑fresh declaration before the expiry of three years from the said declaration.
- An Advocate who acts in violation of such declaration shall be guilty of professional misconduct:
- "Eligible voter", means an Advocate whose name for the time being appears on the Roll of the Bar Association and has fulfilled the conditions laid down under rule 7.10 of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 and not debarred from use of library books or declared as a defaulter."
- "As provided by Rule 5.14(i)(xii) of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974, an Advocate must possess Identity Card showing voter membership of the concerned Bar Association, as he cannot exercise the right of vote in the Elections without production of his Identity Card."
- 1(i) Every practising Advocate must possess Identity Card issued by the Bar Council."
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑R. 5.11(i) & (xii)‑‑‑Memorandum of Association, 1981, Arts. 5(d) & 45‑‑‑Election petition‑‑‑Election of returned candidate had been challenged by the unsuccessful candidate on ground that Election Board had not complied with the instructions issued by Punjab Bar Council and had allowed voters to cast their votes without asking for production of "Identity Cards" issued to them by Punjab Bar Council and that Election Board had allowed certain Advocates to cast their votes at place L' who were not voters/members of the said place but were voters/members of places "M" and "B"‑‑ Returned candidate who resisted the election petition had produced photo copy of undertaking given by the contesting candidates in which it was agreed that condition of identity cards issued by Punjab Bar Council was waived‑‑‑Such undertaking being against spirit of R.5.11(xii) of Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 and instructions issued by Punjab Bar Council at time of polling parties could not be permitted to bypass the rules and instructions‑‑‑Non production of identity cards was glaring irregularity and illegality committed by Election Board and due to said act of Election Board, certain persons were allowed to cast their votes at place "L" who were not holding their voter membership thereat‑‑‑Said persons/Advocates were not competent to cast their votes and to become voters/members of place "L ", without filing declaration which was necessary under the Rules‑‑‑Any act required to be done in a particular way had to be done in that manner and not in any other manner‑‑‑Election Board was not justified to allow persons/advocates to cast their votes at place "L" who were voters/members of places "B" and "M "‑‑‑ Election result was set aside with the direction that Election Board be constituted for holding re polling. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Bahawalpur 8 Mr. Ejaz Hussain Bukhari L.C.10‑6‑1997 Lodhran 9 Mr. Mukhta Musood. H.C. Multan
10. Ch. Rustam Ali H.C.16‑3‑1988 Lodhran
11. Rao Liaqat Ali H.C.5‑1‑1995 Lodhran
12. Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad H.C.25‑9‑1988 Lodhran
6. Before adjudicating the above points involved in the controversy, it is appropriate to reproduce below the relevant Rules of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974, and the Articles of the Memorandum of Association, 1981, and also the Instructions issued by the Punjab Bar Council:‑‑‑ Rule 5.11(xii): "Every lawyer, while exercising his right of vote in election of the Bar Council/Bar Association shall produce, his Identity Card and the Presiding Officer shall refuse his participation in the election on non- production of the Identity Card " Rule 7.10(b); "An Advocate who is, or becomes, member of more than one Bar Association, shall before 31st December from the date of publication of the Rule‑‑‑ (a) file one declaration each with one Bar Association in the District and a High Court Bar Association, where he proposes to exercise his right of vote' and (b) send copies of this declaration to the Bar Association of which he is a member. However, the Punjab Bar Council, may for sufficient reasons, extend the said period. No Advocate shall tile a ‑fresh declaration before the expiry of three years from the said declaration. An Advocate who acts in violation of such declaration shall be guilty of professional misconduct: Provided further that the provision, as aforesaid, shall not apply to the membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Article 5(d): "Eligible voter", means an Advocate whose name for the time being appears on the Roll of the Bar Association and has fulfilled the conditions laid down under rule 7.10 of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 and not debarred from use of library books or declared as a defaulter." Article 11: "Members of another Bar Association shall be entitled to all amenities admissible to regular member if he pays Rs. 25 as admission fee, Rs. 5 as monthly subscription but he shall not be entitled to contest or take part in any manner. whatsoever in the elections of the Bar Association " Article 45: "The Annual Elections of the Bar Association shall be held under the supervision of the Election Board, so as to conclude by 15th of January, each year. All office holders of the Association mentioned in the Rules shall be elected by the members of the Association who had been declared 'eligible voters', by the President in the list published and pasted on the notice board on the 15th of December, each year: Provided that the First Annual Election of the Bar Association, other than District/Sub‑Division Bar Associations, shall be held so as to conclude on or before 15th March, 1982, giving effect to the provisions of Article 45 in relation to declaration of eligible voters and publication and pasting of list of others at the notice board." "As provided by Rule 5.14(i)(xii) of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974, an Advocate must possess Identity Card showing voter membership of the concerned Bar Association, as he cannot exercise the right of vote in the Elections without production of his Identity Card." Rule 5.11(i) and (xii) is reproduced as under: 1(i) Every practising Advocate must possess Identity Card issued by the Bar Council." "(xii) Every. lawyer, while exercising his right of vote in election of the Bar Council/Bar Association shall produce, his Identity Card and the Presiding Officers shall refuse his participation in the election on non -production of the Identity Card."
7. That the abovementioned Rules and the Articles are very clear. The contesting candidates cannot waive the Rules or the Instructions issued by the Punjab Bar Council 't at the time of elections. In the present case, both the parties through undertaking dated 15‑1‑2000 gave the consent that no objection will be raised regarding the non‑production of the Identity Cards at the time of polling.
8. It is a well‑settled principle of law that any act required to be done in a particular way has to be done in that manner and not in any other manner. We cannot approve this practice. If we allow such practice, it will open the flood gate and any voter member will become the voter member of any other Bar Association of his choice each year which is not the intention of Rule 5.11 (xii) of the Punjab Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1974 read with Article 5(d) of the Memorandum of Association, 1981. The abovementioned Rules are very clear which do not permit a voter to retain double or triple voter membership of different Bar Associations at the same time without filing the declaration before the Punjab Bar Council or without changing the place of business from the Identity Card.
9. The Election Board was required to perform their functions and duties of conducting the election strictly within the four corners of the Law/Rules and Memorandum of Association; 1981. We are afraid that we cannot deviate from these Rules. If we will allow the parties to bypass these Rules, it will create chaos and resultantly no discipline could be maintained in the election.
10. This undertaking is against the spirit of the Rule 5.11(xii) and the Instructions issued by the Punjab Bar Council at the time of polling. We cannot permit the parties to bypass the Rules and the Instructions issued by the Punjab Bar Council. If we will allow such practice of " bypassing the Rules/ Instructions, the object of the fair and transparent elections cannot be achieved. Hence the undertaking dated 15‑1‑2000 has no force and it has no value in the eye of law. Therefore, non‑production of Identity Cards was a glaring irregularity and illegality committed by the Election Board and due to this act of the Election Board, certain persons were allowed to cast their votes at Lodhran who were not holding their voter membership of Lodhran and in this election the persons mentioned in the chart at Serial Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 were allowed to cast their votes, who were not the valid/eligible voter members of District Bar Association Lodhran, as per Rule 5.11(xii). Their place of business/voter membership was Bahawalpur and Multan: They were not competent to cast their votes or to become the voter members of the District Bar Association, Lodhran without 8 filing the declaration which was necessary under the Rules. In this view of the matter, the Election Board has wrongly allowed these six persons to cast their votes at Lodhran, At this stage, it is difficult to determine that in whose favour these six votes were cast. Hence we have no other option except to set aside the election result of the District Bar Association, Lodhran for the Office of General‑Secretary as respondent No. l has won the election by a margin of seven votes, and allowing these six persons to cast their votes has materially affected the result of the District Bar Association, Lodhran.
11. We are not inclined to interfere with the other result of the District Bar Association, Lodhran on the ground that Khan Atta Hussain Khan Baluch was declared as a successful candidate for the Office of President by a margin of 29 votes; whereas Mehr Muhammad Yousuf Sahran won the election for the Office of Joint Secretary by a margin of 14 votes. If the abovesaid six persons who were not the valid voters of the District Bar Association, Lodhran are excluded from the counting, it will not affect the election result of the Office of President and the Joint Secretary.
12. In view of what has been stated above, we hereby set aside the election result for the Office of General Secretary of the District Bar Association, Lodhran which was held on 15‑1‑2000. We direct Khan Atta Hussain Khan Baluch, President, District.Bar Association Lodhran to constitute the Election Board who should hold re‑polling for the office of General Secretary within 21 days as per Article 45 of the Memorandum of Association, 1981. H.B.T./191/E.P. Petition accepted.