1969 PLP 746 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALT, J.‑Along with seventeen other persons the petitioner has been declared as a tout by the High Court and his entry in the precincts of Courts is debarred. The facts briefly are that in an urgent meeting held on the 9th' September 1967, the High Court Bar Association named the petitioner and seventeen others as touts by general reputation. The resolution was endorsed to the High Court in pursuance to which a learned Single Judge held an inquiry and recorded evidence produced by the High Court Bar Association and the persons named in the resolution as touts. Among others Major Wahiduddin, Advocate, Mr. M. A. Zullah, since elevated to the Bench of the High Court and Mr. Mahmud Ali Kasuri, a Senior Advocate of this Court, deposed in support of the resolution. Major Wahiduddin named the petitioner as one of the touts who pester litigants in the High Court premises. In ,cross‑examination a suggestion was made that Major Wahiduddin was motivated in giving evidence against the petitioner as the latter had refused to give cases to him against payment of a share of the fee. This was a clear admission of the general reputation that the petitioner was a tout. The defence evidence led by the petitioner as well as by the other persons named as touts was found by the learned Judge to be worthless and relying mainly on the resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association, he declared them as touts and further directed that their names be published in the Gazette and they be forbidden from entering the precincts of Courts. A further appeal taken from this order was dismissed by the Letters Patent . Bench on 9‑5‑1969. It is against this order that the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the meeting in which the aforementioned resolution under section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act was passed, was not legally convened in so far as no notice was issued to the individual members of the High Court Bar Association and the meeting was held within three days of the receipt of the requisition during summer vacations when most of the members were away from Lahore. Reliance was placed on A I R 1931. Lah. 57 and P L D 1951 Lah.

38. There is no substance in any one of the grounds raised in. support of the petition. We have seen the original record of the High Court Bar Association. A requisition signed: by thirteen members along with the proposed resolution containing the names of twenty persons including that of the petitioner was received by the Vice‑President of the Association on the 7th of September 1967, who instead of calling a special meeting chose to convene an urgent meeting on the 9th of September 1967, and acting under rule 29 of the Rules of the High Court Bar Association reduced the period of notice to two, days. Rule 29 specifically provides that in the case of emergency the President or in his absence the Vice‑President may further reduce the period of notice required for a Meeting provided under that rule. A notice along with the requisition and the proposed resolution were circulated to the members of the High Court Bar Association and a copy was pasted on the notice board in the main hall of the Association on the 7th September,. 1967. Rule 31 provides that notice shall be given by pasting the notice in some conspicuous place in the library, by circulating notice book to such members as can conveniently be informed in that way, and sending out a special notice by post, addressed to every member not resident at Lahore and to every member resident at Lahore who may have requested the Secretary to send him notices in this way and shall register his address in the Secretary's office. There is a proviso to the rule that the this rule has been substantially complied with the non‑receipt of notice by any member or members shall not render the proceedings of any meeting irregular or affect the validity of any resolution passed thereat. No member of the High Court Bar Association has pleaded want of notice or challenged the validity of the urgent meeting held on the 9th September 1967, on the ground that he was not served. The petitioner who is an outsider had, therefore, no locus standing to impugn the proceedings of the meeting in which the resolution naming him, among others as a tout was passed for want of notice to all the members of the High Court Bar Association. The High Court has expressed this view and we fully concur in it. As to the ' cases relied upon by the learned counsel neither judgment support the petitioner's case. Mr. A. A. K. Lodhi next drew our attention to the requisition by forty‑two members of the High Court Bar Association for convening a special meeting to reconsider the case of the petitioner. This, however, in the opinion of the learned Judge of the Letters Patent Bench did not detract from the evidentiary value under section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act of the resolution passed in the meeting held on the 9th September 1967. It was observed in this respect that it is open to the Association to convene a special general meeting for considering the case of the petitioner or other cases and reporting the result to the High Court for alteration or amendment of the list as provided for in section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, but that would be a separate process and such a result cannot be achieved by the petitioner and others by personally approaching other members in their personal capacity. The requisition by forty‑two members was in this view, discarded from consideration by the learned Judges and we feel ourselves in accord with them. In the circumstances the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.