CH. NAZEER AHMAD Versus M.B. ZAMMAN

The name of the petitioner was proposed by Mian Ali Hussain, Advocate: Sialkot, as a candidate for election to the Provincial Bar Council from Sialkot. Petitioner accepted the proposal with a further statement that he was willing to serve as a member if so elected. On 17th of December 1973 when the nomination papers of the petitioner came up for scrutiny, the Returning officer rejected them by observing, "He is enrolled at Lahore and so cannot. contest" election from Sialkot. The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the said order. ,

2. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner is entered on the list of the Provincial Bar Council as an Advocate practising generally in Lahore. He, however, maintains that notwithstanding the fact that the name of the petitioner is entered on the list of the Provincial Bar Council as an Advocate practising generally in Lahore, he could contest the election from any District of the Punjab. In other words, the contention is that all that is necessary is that the Advocate propos ing his name should be an Advocate practising generally in the District and not that the Advocate, who is a candidate of the election, should also be practis ing generally in that District. If this contention is accepted it will mean that although an Advocate may not be generally practising in a District, yet he may, if his name is proposed by an Advocate of a District, contest the election from the District. Reliance was placed on subsection (1) of section 5 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. It reads: ` (1) Each: Provincial Bar Council shall consist (a) in the case of a Bar Council for a Province other than the Provinces of Sind and Baluchistan, of the Advocate -General for that Province, and, in the case of the Bar Council for the Provinces of Sind and Baluchistan, the Advocate-General for Sind and the Advocate General for Baluchistan, ex officio, and (h) such number of other members as may be elected by the Advocates on the provincial roll from amongst themselves." Since the name of the petitioner is entered on the Provincial Roll, he could be a member. But he has also to satisfy the condition which is provided in subsection (2) and clause (a) of which lays down that "if, on the first day of November of the year in which elections to the Bar Council are to be held,` hereinafter called the said day the number of Advocates practising generally in a district and entered on the Provincial Roll from that district is not less than fifty, one member shall be elected from such district". The words "from such district" are significant and are doubtless referable to the "Advocates practising generally in" the district. The nomi nation papers are filed under rule 4 of the West Pakistan Bar Councils (First Elections) Rules, 1973. It lays down that "at any time before 2 p.m. on a date to be specified by the Chairman, any Advocate practising generally in a district and entered oh the Provincial Roll may propose another such advocate for election as member of the Provincial Bar Council by delivering at the office of the Returning Officer nomination paper signed by him accom panied by a statement by the Advocate whose name is proposed that he is willing to serve as member, if elected". The proposal has to be by "any Advocate practising generally in a district" and it has to be of "another such Advocate for election as member of the Provincial Bar Council." The word "such" is referable to something which proceeds and the same is "any Advocate practising generally in a District and entered on the provincial roll." The contention of the learned counsel that words "such Advocate" should be read as referring only to an Advocate "entered on the provincial roll" cannot be accepted because in the context the words "any Advocate practising generally in a District and entered on the Provincial Roll" have to be read together. Moreover, if we accept any such contention, it will frustrate the very intention of the Legislature and purpose of the Act.

In the earlier Bar Councils Act the number of members of the Bar Council were fixed and they were elected on the provincial basis and who soever secured the highest votes in the Province was elected. All the members could be elected from one place and there could be no objection to the same. It was realized that the members from anyone place, which had the largest number of Advocates could be elected to the exclusion of the members of other places. It so happened that in West Pakistan Bar Council, which was constituted in 1958, all members were elected from Lahore or Karachi except one from Multan. Same happened in the election of Bar Council of 1962 and it was repeated in the elections of Bar Council of 1962 and 1968. It was, therefore, thought that the election should be so devised as to give representation, as far as possible, to each District. It was for this reason that it was provided that if number of Advocates practising generally in a district is not less than 50, one member shall be elected from such district. The fixation of number at 50, for the first member was in due regard of the fact that in many districts the number of Advocates practising generally there was not high. If the view expressed on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and it is held that an Advocate practising anywhere in the Province can contest election from the seats which are reserved for each District, it would enable all advocates say at Lahore where there are large number of Advocates to have their names proposed by Advocates in those districts and get elected. This, in no way, would be a representation of the District. The language of section 5 of the Act and that of rule 4 of the Rules leaves no room for doubt that in order that an Advocate should be elected from a district, he should be proposed by an Advocate practising generally there and also that he himself generally practises in that district.

3. Learned counsel next contended that though the petitioner's name appears in the persons, who are entered on the Provincial Roll as Advocate generally practising in Lahore, he in fact, has shifted his practice at Sialkot and is now practising in Daska. Under rule 3(1)(c) it was notified that anyone could on or before the date fixed file claim and objection regarding the list. The petitioner did not file the objection to his name having been shown in the list of Advocate practising generally in Lahore and he also did not file any claim for being shown as an Advocate practising generally in Sialkot. The final list, which was published on the 29th of November 1973, therefore, contained his name as an Advocate practising in Lahore. He cannot, there fore, make any grievance about it, nor can he, when his name is not entered in the list as an Advocate practising in Sialkot, claim that he should be so considered.

4. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.

S. A. H. Petition dismissed.