1993CLC66 (PLP)

(a) Power of attorney‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Interpretation‑‑‑Power of attorney should be construed strictly and should be interpreted to give only those powers to attorney which it had conferred expressly or by necessary implication upon him or which had been incorporated in the power of attorney. (b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.173‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed on behalf of a company/companies‑‑ Essentials ‑‑‑Constitutional petition filed on behalf of company/companies should be accompanied by the Memorandum/Articles of Association and the resolution of the Board of Directors containing names of Directors who had participated in the meeting and such meeting should also authorise a specific person for filing Constitutional petition‑‑‑Constitutional petition not accompanied by such essential documents would be incompetent and deemed to have been filed without any authority of law‑‑‑Petitions were dismissed in circumstances. (c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Education Cess Act,1975‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.2(10), (11), (12) & (13) [added by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Education Cess Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991]‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Ad (VIII of 1974), S.4(15)‑‑‑Education cess imposed on petitioners whether in conflict with fundamental rights laid down in S.4(15) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974‑‑‑Entitlement to invoke Constitutional guarantees‑‑‑Guarantees provided under Fundamental Rights in S.4(15) of the Constitution would not be available to petitioners who were not "State subjects" of Azad Jammu and Kashmir‑‑‑Words "any person" and "all the citizens" having not been used in S.4(15) of the Constitution, all the persons residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir or working there, were not entitled to the Fundamental Rights provided in the Constitution but only those persons were entitled who were State subjects‑‑‑Petitioner companies having failed to prove that they were registered in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and were thus "State subjects" were not entitled to any guarantees provided under S.4(15), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 1990 CLC 136; PLD 1983 Azad J&K 10; PLD 1990 Pesh. 51; PLD 1990 Lah. 121 and PLD 1990 Kar. 342 ref. (d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.4(15)‑‑‑Object of S.4(15)‑‑‑Phrase "equal protection of law" contained in S.4(15), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974‑‑ Connotation. The basic object of section 4(15), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, is that the persons should be uniformally treated by law, unless there are some reasonable reasons why they should be treated differently. The guarantee contained in this article is only that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of law which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in like circumstances. The word equal protection of law does not mean equality of operation of legislation upon all the citizens of States. The equal protection of law means that no person or class of persons shall be denied by the State protection of law which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes is in alike circumstances in their lives, liberty. The guarantee of equal protection of law requires that all persons should be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. While applying this principle, it has always been recognized that the classification of persons or things is not in any way repugnant to the equality provided and the classification is not arbitrary or capricious and is natural, reasonable and appears to be fair. It is settled principle of law, that two sets of the circumstances would not have different legal effects, unless there is a difference of circumstances and the difference between the two sets is material enough to support the discrimination. The concept of law does not involve the idea of absolute equality among human beings which is physically impossible. The guarantee of equal protection of law does not prevent or prohibit the State from applying different laws or different treatment to different persons. This section does not restrain the reasonable classification with regard to the operation of law. The State has power of classification on the basis of rational distinction relevant to particular circumstances in particular situation, but where the classification was arbitrary or capricious or was not fair then that was not permissible. If the classification was relevant to the object of Act, it could not be set aside unless the relevancy was too remote or fanciful. A classification made on the basis of race, colour or religion, should be rejected. The classification may be due to geographical situation, it may be based on the territorial, economic and other similar considerations. The Constitution itself contemplates the passing of a different law for different persons. PLD 1957 SC 91 and AIR 1955 SC 166 ref. (e) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Fiscal legislation through Ordinance‑‑‑Competency of President to promulgate Ordinance‑‑‑Words "Act of the Assembly" contained in S. 2 of the Constitution includes an Ordinance promulgated by the President‑‑ President was, thus, competent to promulgate fiscal legislation through Ordinance.