1984 PLP 1302 (SCMR)

‑‑‑ Normally does not undertake a purely academic exercise but on basis of an hypothetical case, Supreme Court deals with only live issue. P L D 1965 S C 90 ref. M. Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Majid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. M. Ihsanul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.B. Khizar Tamimi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J.‑‑ This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the Disciplinary Committee of the University of the Punjab, Lahore against the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, which has in a petition under Article 98 of the late Constitution, set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Committee disqualifying the respondent herein under Regulation No. 18(3) for three years and for two years under Regulation No.13. The effect of this disqualification was that the respondent was declared to be ineligible to reappear in any University examination earlier. Than the examination to be held in May/June, 1969. The judgment of the High Court was announced on the 5th of July, 1968, but the petition for special leave to appeal was filed in this Court on the 5th of May, 1969. In paragraph 5 of the petition it was stated that after the oral order of the learned Judges passed on the 5th of July, 1968, the respondent had been allowed to appear in the examination provisionally subject to the decision of this Court in appeal filed nor had leave been granted in the case. The respondent, it appears, actually appeared in the Supplementary Examination held is 1968 and was declared successful. His results were not withheld nor was any order obtained from this Court for withholding the results. In fact, a Diploma was subsequently issued to him on the 27th of May, 1969, declaring that he had passed the Bachelor of Arts Examination of the University of the Punjab held in November, 1968, in the second division. Leave was actually granted in this case on the 29th of September, 1969, after the issuance of the above mentioned certificate, in order to consider as to whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case the Disciplinary Committee or the Vice‑Chancellor was under any obligation to summon the supervisory staff for cross‑examination and whether by not affording an opportunity to the respondent to cross- examine the said witnesses the principle of natural justice had been violated. Nothing was said in the order about the result of the respondent already announced. In the circumstances, the question arises as to whether there is any live issue now which still remains to be decided. The respondent has been allowed to appear at a subsequent examination and has been declared to have passed the same successfully. It is difficult to appreciate how this result can now be annulled as a result of the decision of this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Committee has, however, contended that since leave was granted after the result of the respondent had been announced, it must be presumed that leave was granted to examine the question of law raised as purely academic question in view of the fact that it was of general importance to educational institutions in this country. There is nothing in the order of this Court which would support this contention. Normally, this Court does not undertake a purely academic exercise. On the basis of an hypothetical case, this Court deals with inly live issues. In the presents case, it is obvious that the issue was no longer a live issue even at the time when leave was granted. The result of this appeal cannot, in any event, affect the result of the respondent on the basis of a subsequent examination. There is no question of the respondent having adopted any unfair means in the said subsequent examination or that of his result being vitiated in any manner by reasons of any other kind of irregularity. Following the consistent practice of this Court, therefore, we have reluctantly to dismiss this appeal on the ground that it has become wholly infructuous. The question, which has been raised in the case, can be decided in any other appropriate case when brought before this Court as a live issue but it needs to be pointed out that the dismissal of this appeal does not mean that this Court is approving of the principle laid down by the High Court in the impugned judgment, which seems to run counter to the principle already laid down by this Court in the case of the University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad P L D 1965 S C

90. However, since this appeal is being dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous, this Court does not wish to do anything further on this question at this stage. Since this appeal is dismissed on the ground that it has become infructuous, there will be no order as to costs. M . Z . M Appeal dismissed