2015 PLP 997 (SCMR)
KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA BAR COUNCIL through Chief Secretary — Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN ADVOCATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 997 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk, C.J., Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA BAR COUNCIL through Chief Secretary — Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN ADVOCATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 997 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 997 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk, C.J., Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Sh. Azmat Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 997 (SCMR) (KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA BAR COUNCIL through Chief Secretary — Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN ADVOCATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Amjad Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Muhammad Aqil, Advocate Supreme Court (Member Sindh Bar Council) for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2014.
- MUKHTAR AHMED KHAN ADVOCATE and others---Respondents
- ----Rr. 28(f)(ii), (iii) & 55---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25---Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund, Benevolent Fee and other charges---Discrimination---Advocate, enrolled in Province of Sindh from where he shifted to Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was directed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council to deposit Rs.30,000 as Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund of Bar Council, Benevolent Fee and other charges as required by Rules---High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, declared Rr.28 & 55 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 as discriminatory on the ground that same were not included in the Rules of other Bar Councils---Validity---Requirement of deposit of such amount was applicable even to those already enrolled as members of another Bar Council---Advocate could not dispute his obligation under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 to pay such fee and contributions---Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court which had misapplied Art. 25 of the Constitution---Appeal was allowed.
- NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J.---Respondent No. 1, Mukhtar Ahmed Khan, was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Sindh. In 2010, he shifted to his home town in District Swabi in order to practice law in N.-W.F.P. [now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)]. He applied for registration to the KPK Bar Council and was directed to deposit Rs.30,000 as Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund of Bar Council and Benevolent Fund and other charges as required by the Rules. He questioned this demand through Writ Petition filed before the Peshawar High Court which was allowed by the High Court through the impugned judgment on the ground that the said Rules were discriminatory as the same were not included in the Rules of others Bar Councils. The KPK Bar Council has impugned the judgment of the Peshawar High Court through this petition for leave to appeal.
- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rules 28(f)(ii)(iii) and 55 of the KPK Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 (hereinafter "Bar Council Rules") read with Rule 4 of the KPK Advocates Benevolent Fund Rules, 2010 (hereinafter "Benevolent Fund Rules") requires that an advocate applying for enrolment shall deposit enrolment or re-enrolment fee along with payment towards general welfare fund and benevolent fund; that the said requirement is also applicable to lawyers already enrolled as advocate of another Bar Council. It was pointed out that the High Court erred on facts as similar rules are available in the Bar Council Rules of Sindh and Punjab.
- "An Advocate enrolled with any other Bar Council of Pakistan, who wants to be enrolled as such with Bar Council, shall have to provide all the documents required for enrolment as an Advocate along with No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) from the concerned Bar Council and to pay enrolment fee, benevolent fund and other charges accordingly to the age group prescribed under these Rules."
- 8. Even on the factual plan the respondent had no case as the Punjab Bar Council as well as Sindh Bar Council do not provide any exemption from payment of Benevolent Fund etc to lawyers who are already members of another bar council where they have been making such contributions. Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Advocates Benevolent Fund Rules, 1974 refers to advocates contributing their funds as 'contributory advocates' and does not make any distinction between an advocate originally registered with the bar council or registered on transfer from another bar council. Similarly Rule 48-A of the Sindh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2002 provides for payment of Rs.2,000 as fee and the benevolent fund contribution in accordance with Rule 2.2 of the Benevolent Fund Rules. On this score alone, the respondent's petition was liable to be dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 3-6-2014 passed in W.P. No. 1564 of 2011)
Rr. 28(f)(ii), (iii) & 55
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25
Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund, Benevolent Fee and other charges
Advocate, enrolled in Province of Sindh from where he shifted to Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was directed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council to deposit Rs.30,000 as Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund of Bar Council, Benevolent Fee and other charges as required by Rules
High Court, under its constitutional jurisdiction, declared Rr.28 & 55 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 as discriminatory on the ground that same were not included in the Rules of other Bar Councils
Requirement of deposit of such amount was applicable even to those already enrolled as members of another Bar Council
Advocate could not dispute his obligation under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 to pay such fee and contributions
Supreme Court set aside the order passed by High Court which had misapplied Art. 25 of the Constitution
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, C.J.
Respondent No. 1, Mukhtar Ahmed Khan, was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Sindh. In 2010, he shifted to his home town in District Swabi in order to practice law in N.-W.F.P. [now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK)]. He applied for registration to the KPK Bar Council and was directed to deposit Rs.30,000 as Enrollment Fee, General Welfare Fund of Bar Council and Benevolent Fund and other charges as required by the Rules. He questioned this demand through Writ Petition filed before the Peshawar High Court which was allowed by the High Court through the impugned judgment on the ground that the said Rules were discriminatory as the same were not included in the Rules of others Bar Councils. The KPK Bar Council has impugned the judgment of the Peshawar High Court through this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent No.1 appeared in person.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rules 28(f)(ii)(iii) and 55 of the KPK Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 (hereinafter "Bar Council Rules") read with Rule 4 of the KPK Advocates Benevolent Fund Rules, 2010 (hereinafter "Benevolent Fund Rules") requires that an advocate applying for enrolment shall deposit enrolment or re-enrolment fee along with payment towards general welfare fund and benevolent fund; that the said requirement is also applicable to lawyers already enrolled as advocate of another Bar Council. It was pointed out that the High Court erred on facts as similar rules are available in the Bar Council Rules of Sindh and Punjab.
4. The respondent, however, contended that the said Rules are discriminatory as they are not included in the relevant Rules of the Punjab and Sindh Bar Councils, that he was simply shifting his practice from one Province to another and that his contribution to the benevolent fund and the general welfare fund can be transferred from Sindh Bar Council to KPK Bar Council.
5. Rule 55 of the KPK Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2010 provides: "An Advocate enrolled with any other Bar Council of Pakistan, who wants to be enrolled as such with Bar Council, shall have to provide all the documents required for enrolment as an Advocate along with No Objection Certificate (N.O.C.) from the concerned Bar Council and to pay enrolment fee, benevolent fund and other charges accordingly to the age group prescribed under these Rules."
6. Rule 55 of the Bar Council rules when read with Rule 28(f)(ii)(iii) provide that along with application form the applicant shall also file the receipt of enrolment or re-enrolment fee, payment towards general welfare determined as per the table given in the said Rules, benevolent fee and other charges. The said Rule clearly shows that the requirement of deposit of the said amounts is applicable even to those already enrolled as Members of another bar council. When the above provisions were brought to the notice of the respondent he was not in a position to dispute his obligation under the Bar Council Rules to .pay the said fee and contributions.
7. As regards the argument regarding discrimination, the same is misconceived. A Bar Council is created under a Provincial statute which is empowered to frame its own rules. Rules framed by one Bar Council cannot be struck down on the ground that the same are not in conformity with Rules of another. It is not the case of the respondent that the KPK Bar Council has discriminated in the application of its own rules. Any argument alleging discrimination would lead to absurdity as a person affected by a provincial law or rule, would then be permitted to argue that he be regulated by beneficial rules of another province.
8. Even on the factual plan the respondent had no case as the Punjab Bar Council as well as Sindh Bar Council do not provide any exemption from payment of Benevolent Fund etc to lawyers who are already members of another bar council where they have been making such contributions. Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Advocates Benevolent Fund Rules, 1974 refers to advocates contributing their funds as 'contributory advocates' and does not make any distinction between an advocate originally registered with the bar council or registered on transfer from another bar council. Similarly Rule 48-A of the Sindh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 2002 provides for payment of Rs.2,000 as fee and the benevolent fund contribution in accordance with Rule 2.2 of the Benevolent Fund Rules. On this score alone, the respondent's petition was liable to be dismissed.
9. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court has misapplied Article 25 of the Constitution. The petition is, therefore, converted into appeal and allowed. These are the reasons of our short order of even date, which reads: "For the reasons to be recorded later, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and Writ Petition filed before the learned High Court stands dismissed." MH/K-2/SC Appeal allowed.