1989 PLP 1864 (MLD)

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to

5. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1989. Election Schedule for Annual Election of District Bar Association, Lahore for the year 1988 was announced by the Election Board and nomination papers were required to be filed from 21‑12‑1987 to 23‑12‑1987. Scrutiny was held on 24‑12‑1987. Respondent No.1. was the only candidate for the office of Joint Secretary. The Election Board vide order dated 24‑12‑1987 held that the office of Joint Secretary does not exist so far as District Bar Association, Lahore is concerned because the Association elects two Secretaries. The nomination of respondent No.l was declared out of order and his nomination paper was rejected accordingly. Respondent No. 1 assailed the order of the Election Board through a petition before the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council The matter came up for hearing before Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council on 6‑1‑1988 and it was held that the Election Board of District Bar Association, Lahore has acted in contravention of Memorandum of Association prescribed by Punjab Bar Council in coming to the conclusion that inasmuch as there are more than one Secretaries of District Bar Association, Lahore, therefore, the office of Joint Secretary does not exist in that Association. The order of Election Board was held to be misconceived and it was held that the office of Joint Secretary of Bar Association is separate and distinct from that of a Secretary. Rejection of nomination paper of respondent No.1 was declared ultra wires of h1oniorandurn of Association and without jurisdiction. It was directed that Election Board shall consider respondent No.1 as a validly nominated candidate for the office of Joint Secretary of District Bar Association, Lahore. The appeal in hand is directed against the above‑mentioned order of the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council passed on 6‑1‑1988. Mian Israrul Haq, President District Bar Association, Lahore has argued that the order dated 6‑1‑1988 is mala fide, without jurisdiction and illegal. Article 12 of the Memorandum of Association has been described as ultra vires of Section 56 of Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act, 1973. Main plank of his arguments is that according to a long‑standing practice the District Bar Association, Lahore elects two Secretaries and there is no post of Joint Secretary, therefore, the nomination paper of respondent No.1 was rightly rejected by Election Board. It is also contended that the office of Joint Secretary is optional and not compulsory and order appealed from is clearly against the interests of District Bar Association, Lahore and was likely to create a chaos in the affairs of the District Bar Association, Lahore. Provisions of Article 24 were also referred to by President, District Bar Association, Lahore so as to show that the Joint Secretary may not be a Member of Executive Committee of the Bar Association. Respondent No. 1 has defended the order of the Executive Committee of Punjab Bar Council and has referred to clauses `f and `g' of Article 5 and Article 12 of Memorandum of Bar Association to show that the office of the Joint Secretary is a separate and distinct office and the provision of such an office cannot be dispensed with merely because the District Bar Association, Lahore elects two Secretaries. After having heard both the parties at length the Members of this Committee are of the confirmed view that reasoning advanced by Election Board of District Bar Association, Lahore in its order dated 24‑12‑1987 does not find any support from the provisions of Memorandum of Bar Association prescribed by the Punjab Bar Council and the Executive Committee of the Punjab Bar Council was quite correct in holding that the interpretation of Election Board that since there are more than one Secretaries of District Bar Association, Lahore as such there is no office of Joint Secretary, was misconceived. It will not be out of place 'to mention' that nomination papers were invited without specification of any office and respondent No.1 was well within his rights in filing his nomination paper for election to the office of Joint secretary. The contention raised by the President,, District Bar Association, Lahore as to Article 12 of Memorandum of Association being ultra wires of Section 56 of Memorandum of Association is wholly misconceived. Under clause `n' of Section 56 of the Act the Punjab Bar Council has the power to make Rules to provide for the recognition, derecognition and functioning of the Bar Associations. The Memorandum of Association i.e. the Rules of business of Bar Association made by Punjab Bar council in exercise of towers conferred by Section 56 of the Act are therefore, in every respect intra vires of the Punjab Bar Council. Under clause ?f? of Article 5 of Memorandum of Association office bearers mean President, Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Finance Secretary, Secretary Library or Librarian, Auditor and Member of the Executive Committee. Under clause `g' of Article 3, President, Vice President/s, Secretary/s, Joint Secretary, Finance Secretary, Members of Executive Committee, Secretary Library, Auditor means the President; Vice President/s Secretary Joint Secretary, Finance Secretary, Members Executive Committee, Secretary Library and Auditor of the Bar Association elected under the Memorandum of Association. As envisaged by Article 12 of the Memorandum of Association a Bar Association shall consist of a President, Vice‑President/s, Secretary/s, Joint Secretary, Finance Secretary, Secretary Library bf Librarian, Members of the Executive Committee, Auditor and the ordinary. Members. Under Article 22 the Joint Secretary has to exercise the powers and duties assigned to Secretary in the absence of Secretary of the Association. In terms of Article 24 of Memorandum of Association the worst that can be said against a Joint Secretary is that he may or may not be a Member of Executive Committee, but under this Article three other elected‑office bearers i.e. Finance Secretary, Secretary Library of Librarian and the Auditor are not at all Members of Executive Committee; but at the same time they are office ?bearers of Bar Association like the President, Vice‑Presidents, Secretaries and Joint Secretary. District Bar Association Lahore. is not entitled to any special treatment which is not at all visualized by Memorandum of Article of Association. The argument that the provision of office of Joint Secretary as retards Lahore District B Bar Association was against its interest and likely to create a chaos in its affairs and would result in irreparable loss to the Association is too fallacious to be attached any credence. Upshot of what has been given above is that the office of Joint Secretary is a distinct and separate office and the office bearer for this office has to be elected by the Bar Associations and this applies to all the District Bar Associations and Sub-Divisional Bar Associations of the Punjab. District Bar Association, Lahore cannot claim any exception so far as provisions of C Memorandum of Association are concerned. This appeal preferred by District Bar Association, Lahore is without substance and the same is dismissed. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 24‑12‑1988 but no decision was announced in view of a request by the President, District Bar Association, Lahore that the Executive Committee of the Appellant Association might consider the possibility of withdrawal of the appeal and written intimation to that effect would 6e given, lay the second week of January, 1989. No such intimation has been received. This order written on 19‑1‑1989 shall be communicated to the parties accordingly. A.A./3/PBC???? Appeal dismissed.