P L D 2011 Supreme Court 674 (PLP)
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. MUBASHIR HASSAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2011 Supreme Court 674 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Muhammad Sair Ali, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Amir Hani Muslim and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. MUBASHIR HASSAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2011 Supreme Court 674 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2011 Supreme Court 674 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Javed Iqbal, Mian Shakirullah Jan, Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Muhammad Sair Ali, Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Khilji Arif Hussain, Tariq Parvez, Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Sarmad Jalal Osmany, Amir Hani Muslim and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2011 Supreme Court 674 (PLP) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others — Petitioners Versus Dr. MUBASHIR HASSAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kamal Azfar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in CRP No.129 of 2010).
- Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in CRP No.199 of 2010).
- Wasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Applicant/Appellant (in C.M.As. Nos.100 and 101 and C.M.Appeal No.14 of 2010).
- Abdul Baseer Qureshi Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Applicant/appellant (in CMA Nos.246, 247, 248 and 249 of 2010).
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Applicant/Appellant (in C.M. Appeal No.77 of 2010).
- Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on Record for Respondent No.1 (in CRP No.129 of 2010).
- 2. Mr. Kamal Azfar, Serial Advocate Supreme Court read out a written statement (not filed in Court) and stated that though it was always a privilege to appear and assist the apex Court, but in the instant case, the Federation of Pakistan had taken away brief from him, and instructed Dr. Khalid Ranjha to appear and argue the case. It was pointed out to him that in his letter dated 30th October, 2010, after having tendered resignation from the post of Advisor to the Prime Minister against which he was appointed a day or so before the hearing of the petition fixed on 13th October, 2010, he had stated that he was available to argue the case. The contents of the letter are reproduced below:--
- 3. In the above background, we have pointed out to Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that in the light of the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by one of us (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J.) in Chambers, his presence would be appreciated as being the lead counsel he has to appear in the Court. Therefore, no one else on his behalf can be allowed to argue the case at this stage, as in terms of Order XXVI rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, no unavoidable circumstances exist for exercising such power. Even otherwise, as is apparent from the cases reported as Muhammad Younas v. State (PLD 2005 SC 93), Mukhtar Ahmad v. State (PLD 2003 SC 126), Feroze Din v. Sardar Muhammad (2002 SCMR 1993), H. Malik Amanullah v. Khyber Khan (2008 SCMR 1723) as well as the recent order dated 1st April, 2011 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 46 of 2011 in Constitution Petition No. 10 of 2011 etc., this Court has always discouraged substitution of counsel except in unavoidable circumstances, therefore, permission to substitute counsel at this stage, that too subject to law, cannot be granted. On this, he prayed for a short adjournment to seek instruction. Accordingly, we re-assembled at 11-30 a.m. He stated that some more time be given to him so that he may contact the competent authority. In the interest of justice, we adjourn this case for 12-4-2011.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.6
Scope
Permission to substitute counsel at review stage, that too subject to law, cannot be granted except in unavoidable circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 199 OF 2010:-- The learned AOR for the petitioner does not press this review petition. Dismissed. CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 129 OF 2010:
2. Mr. Kamal Azfar, Serial Advocate Supreme Court read out a written statement (not filed in Court) and stated that though it was always a privilege to appear and assist the apex Court, but in the instant case, the Federation of Pakistan had taken away brief from him, and instructed Dr. Khalid Ranjha to appear and argue the case. It was pointed out to him that in his letter dated 30th October, 2010, after having tendered resignation from the post of Advisor to the Prime Minister against which he was appointed a day or so before the hearing of the petition fixed on 13th October, 2010, he had stated that he was available to argue the case. The contents of the letter are reproduced below:-- "This has reference to your letter dated 29 October 2010 Ref: C.R. P. No. 129 of 2010 SCJ. I have subsequently resigned on 19th October 2010 by letter addressed to the President of Pakistan and also informed the Pakistan Bar Council by the letter dated 27 October, 2010. Copies of my resignation to the President of Pakistan and the letter to the Pakistan Bar Council are attached. I hope this clarifies the position that acceptance of resignation is not necessary in this case." As has been observed in the case of Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan, Karachi PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52 at page 67: "The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in presenti. I hope this clarifies the position that acceptance of resignation is not necessary in this case."
3. In the above background, we have pointed out to Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that in the light of the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by one of us (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J.) in Chambers, his presence would be appreciated as being the lead counsel he has to appear in the Court. Therefore, no one else on his behalf can be allowed to argue the case at this stage, as in terms of Order XXVI rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, no unavoidable circumstances exist for exercising such power. Even otherwise, as is apparent from the cases reported as Muhammad Younas v. State (PLD 2005 SC 93), Mukhtar Ahmad v. State (PLD 2003 SC 126), Feroze Din v. Sardar Muhammad (2002 SCMR 1993), H. Malik Amanullah v. Khyber Khan (2008 SCMR 1723) as well as the recent order dated 1st April, 2011 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 46 of 2011 in Constitution Petition No. 10 of 2011 etc., this Court has always discouraged substitution of counsel except in unavoidable circumstances, therefore, permission to substitute counsel at this stage, that too subject to law, cannot be granted. On this, he prayed for a short adjournment to seek instruction. Accordingly, we re-assembled at 11-30 a.m. He stated that some more time be given to him so that he may contact the competent authority. In the interest of justice, we adjourn this case for 12-4-2011. M.A.K./F-3/SC Order accordingly.