P L D 1982 Supreme Court 409 (PLP)

lvsnc8 M. A. ZULLAH (CHAIRMAN): This order will dispose of Shariat Appeals Nos. 11 8c 12 of 1981. These appeals are directed against the judg ments of the Federal Shariat Court dated 13‑12‑1980 by separate Benches respectively. In Appeal No. 11 the challenge is to the laws concerning the political parties, elections and related matters while in Appeal No. 12 questions relating to compulsory acquisition of property and compensation therefor under Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 are raised. The hearing on these appeals commenced on 5th June, .1982. On 12‑6 1982 when the appellant was at the concluding stage of his arguments and had only to address arguments on the validity of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and P. O. V. of 1977 (the‑House of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977), requested that he may be allowed to address remaining arguments on two election laws after Mr. S. M. War has argued on these laws. He was, therefore, permitted to commence arguments on his other Appeal No. 12 of 1981 on 13‑6‑1982. However, at the commencement of proceedings today (13‑6‑1982) the appellant presented two separate applications on the subject of these appeals. Herein, he has submitted (i) That the Judges of the Federal Shariat Court (who rendered the judgments under appeal, were not Muslims. (ii) That on account of the said fact there is no judgment of the "Federal Shariat Court. (iii) That the decision being by non‑Muslim Judges is null and void. After having dealt with the position of the Federal Shariat Court and its Judges and the judgment under appeal in the first paragraph of the applications, he has proceeded to make following points with regard to the Court and the appeal proceedings (a) That this Court has no power or jurisdiction under any law including the Constitution to hear these appeals. (b) That the present proceedings and hearing are null and void. (c) That the appeals have to be heard by Muslim Judges implying thereby that the Judges of this Court are not Muslims and can b considered' to be Muslims only if they declare to his satisfaction that they are hearing the appeals as representatives of Allah, uncontrolled b any law or Constitution. (d) That unless such a declaration is forthcoming from the Judges of this Court, he would not pursue the appeals. Notice of these applications was given to the learned Deputy Advocate General and to. learned Additional Advocate‑General and the matter was adjourned for a few hours to enable them to examine their implication, During the hearing on these applications the appellant was told that we have tine and again declared that we would be bound by the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah in deciding these matters but he said that the Court had also been referring to constitutional requirements which does not satisfy him. In this behalf he also pointed out that on a previous hearing it was observed that while he as a Judge of the Supreme Court has been enforcing the constitutional mandate, how this Court could be so oblivious of it now. We may add here that yesterday when rising, it was observed (for the jurisconsults) that prima facie some points raised In the second appeal, namely, No. 12 of 1981, which was to commence next day, seemed to be in conflict with the pleas taken in the first appeal namely No. 11 of 1981 ; and that, they should come prepared on this aspect also. It is in these circumstances that today, before we could commence the proceedings in routine, the appellant, as his very first step submitted the two applications. He did so first in the appeal No 12 which was to commence today and then in appeal No. 11, the hearing in which continued till yesterday. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General referred to rules 4 and 8 of the Shariat Benches of Supreme Courts Rules, 1979 and contended that the applications amounted to, as be put it, refusal of the appellant to pursue the appeals ; which amounts to abandonment and withdrawal. The learned Additional Advocate‑General took the same position with the submission that the appellant cannot impose his own conditions on the satisfaction of which only, he would pursue the appeals. The case in, hand is not covered by rule 4 of the 1979 Rules ; which deals with the absence or death of an appellant. Rule 8, however, b reference makes the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, applicable to these proceed ings, in all matters other than those provided in the Rules of 1979. With drawal as also non‑prosecution of appeals, amongst other similar subjects, e is provided in Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules of 1980. After carefully considering the position taken by the appellant in these applications, together with .his oral explanation in that behalf, we are con vinced that he has abandoned the appeals. This also amounts to refusal to pursue the same and withdrawal thereof. It needs to be observed that after his averment that the Judges who rendered the two judgments under these appeals (in two separate Benches of 4 and 5 Judges, were not Muslims ; and therefore the said judgments are not existent, he has, himself taken a position wherein he could not pursue the appeals any further. It may be clarified here that we did not accept hi assertion about the faith of the learned Judges of the Federal Shariat Court. It is also necessary to point out that the condition sought to be imposed by him on this Court, to say the least, is out of place, unwarranted an extraordinary. We. are. surprised‑till yesterday the proceedings were considered to be, and indeed were,' before the Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Today all of a sudden, the appellant submitted these applications, . at a stage when the proceedings in his second appeal, relating to the protection of certain property rights, were to commence. It Was a surprise to us ; also because, as promised yesterday, the appellant was to submit his manuscript of what he said would be a book in English containing some chapters which would highlight the points taken in Appeal No. 11 of )981 ; and we had decided to get its relevant parts copied, at state expense, for the benefit of all who were to address the Court. Instead of advancing the hearing of the matter further he has, as noted earlier, taken a step for which he alone is responsible, An appellant he has a right to abandon the appeals and/or not to pursue them. We cannot prevent it. This in law D also amounts to withdrawal thereof. It is not necessary to go into the motive as to why he has done so. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed as abandoned and withdrawn. Considering the health and age of the appellant (about 82) we do not consider it appropriate to burden him with the costs of these appeals. s. A. H. Appeals dismissed.