INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS PAKISTAN, ENGINEERING CENTRE, GULBERG-III, LAHORE Versus PAKISTAN ENGINEERING COUNCIL

Institution of Engineers Pakistan has challenged the proceedings before the Executive Committee of Pakistan Engineering Council relating to the de-recognition of M.I.E. (Pak.) qualification. The writ petition was filed in the year 1998 and it was still at the motion stage. Both the parties have addressed the arguments at length and in view of the contentions arguments advanced from both sides the writ petition is admitted to regular hearing and it is disposed of, as such.

2. Facts recorded and stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Act, 1860. The aims and object of the Institution are inter alia to promote and advance the science, practice and business of engineering in all its branches and to encourage, regulate and elevate the technical and general knowledge for persons engaged in or about to engage in engineering.

The Institution grants diploma known as M.I.E. (Pak.)

3. The discipline of engineering in Pakistan required regulation of engineering profession and for this purpose the legislature enacted Pakistan Engineering Council Act which came into effect on 10-1-1976. As this Act came into being much late in the day therefore it proceeded to provide recognition to existing engineering qualification and in that section 10 contemplated for recognition of engineering qualification granted by the Institutes in Pakistan and those Institutes as well the qualification was given out in the First Schedule. For the purposes of the present case the relevant would be Entry No.7 which relate to the Institution of Engineers Pakistan and the diploma of M.I.E. (Pak.). Accordingly the diploma of M.I.E. (Pak.) was taken to be a recognised engineering qualification under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976.

4. Pakistan Engineering Council was established under Act V of 1976 and its functions were enumerated in section 8 which inter alia provided promotion of reforms in the engineering profession; promotion of engineering education and review of courses of studies in consultation with the Universities, recognition of engineering qualification for the purpose of registration of professional engineers and consulting engineers and performance of all other functions connected with, or ancillary or incidental to the aforesaid functions. For the management of the affairs of the Council an Executive Committee was to be constituted under section 9. for performing the functions assigned to the Council under the Act. Section 14 of the Act envisage that the Council shall appoint such number of Inspectors as it may deem requisite to attend at any or all of the examinations held by the Engineering Institutions in Pakistan for the purpose of granting engineering qualifications which are recognised engineering qualifications or in respect whereof recognition is sought for. Sub-clause (2) of section 14 provided that Inspectors appointed under sub-clause (i) shall report to the Council on the sufficiency of the examinations, courses of studies and facilities for teaching provided by the Institution in question at different stages in respect of examination and on any other matter in regard to which the Council may require them to report. It is followed by section 15 which contemplates that on the report of an Inspector if it appears to the Council that the courses of studies, and examinations to be gone through in any engineering Institution in Pakistan or standard of proficiency required from candidates in any examination held for the purpose of granting such qualification are not such as to secure to persons holding such qualification the knowledge and skill requisite for the efficient practice of engineering the Council shall forward the report to the engineering institution concerned with an intimation of the period within which it may submit its explanation to the Council. Sub clause (2) of section 15 provides a further mechanism which is that if no explanation is submitted by the concerned institution within the specified period or if it is submitted, the Council after making such inquiry as it may deem necessary may by a notification in the Official Gazette direct that an entry shall be made in the First Schedule against the engineering qualification to which the explanation relates declaring that it shall be recognised engineering qualification only when granted before a specified date.

4. Pakistan Engineering Council prompted on the complaints from various quarters precipitated a review of the sufficiency of the examinations, courses of studies and facilities for teaching by the Institute of Engineers Pakistan in respect of award of M.I.E. (Pak.) diploma. The issue relating to the sufficiency of examinations, courses of studies and facilities for teaching by the Institute of Engineers Pakistan came into lime light in the wake of some of the complaints and it resulted into a various meetings, joint discussions and deliberations between Pakistan Engineering Council and Institute of Engineers Pakistan. It appears that after a dialogues and discussion which went on for few years. The Pakistan Engineering Council was not satisfied and issued S.R.O. No.384(1)88, dated 31-5-1988 purported to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under section 15 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 and in that a change was made in Entry No.7 of the First Schedule which was interpreted as de recognition of engineering qualification of M.I.E. (Pak.) with effect from 25-5-1986. The notification was put to challenge through writ petitions. Those writ petitions were finally decided by a consolidated judgment recorded in Writ Petition No.4677 of 1988, dated 18-5-1995. A learned Single Bench of this Court struck down S.R.O. No.384(1)88,. dated 31-5-1988 on the legal consideration that the said S.R.O. was not based on the report of inspector as contemplated under section 15 of the Act. Against the said judgment Intra-Court Appeals were preferred with ever also decided by a learned Division Bench of this Court, dated 18-6-2001. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge.

5. The relevancy of the previous history of the litigation is that during the pendancy of the lis before the learned Division Bench another S.R.O. No.1213(I)96, dated 28-10-1996 was issued by the Pakistan Engineering Council whereby the de recognition was diluted and modified but certain pre-conditions were introduced to make the M.I.E. (Pak.) diploma as a recongised diploma. The pre-conditions provided are passing of requisite examinations during a minimum period of 4-1/2 years having pre-engineering qualification. The learned Division Bench of this Court while hearing the appeals taken note of this SRO and it was held that the S.R.O. No.1213(1)96 would take effect from 28-10-1996. It was also noted in the judgment that none of that parties put a challenge to the S.R.O. No.1213(I)96, dated 28-10-1996. The Intra-Court Appeals were finally decided vide judgment, dated 18-6-2001.

6. It appears that Pakistan Engineering Council and Institute of Engineers Pakistan both institutions are manned by professional engineers of the country and they belonged to same fraternity. Perhaps it was because of this reason there existed a liaison and some sort of coordination between both the institutions. During the last more than 15 years the participants of both the organizations set together, discussed, deliberated and genuinely looked forward for a viable solution of the controversy which had arisen in respect for the diploma of M.I.E.(Pak.) Minutes of various meetings between Institution of Engineers Pakistan and Pakistan Engineering Council though all not brought on record but were mentioned by both the parties during their arguments. Coupled with the correspondence brought on record shows that the controversy relating to the diploma its sufficiency of examinations, its courses of studies and facilities of teaching remained under discussion between the parties for more than a decade.

7. After the issuance of S.R.O. 1213(I)96, dated 28-10-1996 a notice under section 15 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 was issued by the Engineering Council to the Institute of Engineers Pakistan. Through this notice the institution was called upon to explain as to why recognition granted vide S.R.O. No.1213(I)96 should not be withdrawn in view of the fact that the institution has failed to abide by the pre-conditions contained in S.R.O. No.1213(I)96. In nutshell the Pakistan Engineering Council on the basis of the. report of its Inspectors inferred that the passing of requisite examinations during a minimum period of 4-1/2 years with. Pre- engineering qualification was not being fulfilled, therefore, the diploma of M.I.E.(Pak.) was not sufficient to secure the persons holding such qualification and knowledge and skill which was requisite for the efficient practice of engineering and the Council; therefore, was of the view that it merit de-recognition. The present writ petition was filed after the issuance of show cause notice and the petitioner challenged the entire proceedings of de-recognition which according to them inter alia included the issuance of show-cause notice.

8. Both the parties addressed their arguments comprehensively. The learned counsel for the- petitioner argued that there was no report in terms of sections 14 and 15 with Council to initiate action against the petitioner. It was argued that the Inspectors mentioned in section 14 means all Inspectors notified and because the. Inspectors notified were 24 in numbers, therefore, any report by nine of the Inspectors would not be a report within the contemplation of section 14 and section 15 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. Second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the letter, dated 14-9-1997 which was taken as a term of reference by the Inspectors is a deviation from the provision of section 14 and it pre-empted the Inspectors to give any independent finding. Thirdly it was argued that Pakistan Engineering Council does not contemplate the recognition of an institute of engineers and if at all any power vested with Pakistan Engineering Council it would only be relatable to the qualification. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if this interpretation is adopted it would lead to a contradiction in terms. 'Arguing further, it was added that Pakistan Engineering Council has no jurisdiction to de-recognition the qualification of M.I.E. (Pak.) diploma because it was recognised in the original Act by the legislature and the Council being subservient creature of the statute do not have any jurisdiction to amend the Act. Lastly it was argued that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner were the result of malice in law and malice in fact. The learned counsel submitted that Doctor Jamil Ahmad Khan who is an eminent member of the engineering fraternity who headed a Committee for submission of the report was indirectly instrumental against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent controverted the arguments of the petitioner. It was submitted that the allegations of malice are unfounded. It has no substance. The matter remained under active consideration of the Pakistan Engineering Council for more than a decade. Every effort was made to resolve the controversy with positive approach and innemrable meetings were held between the participants of institution of Engineers Pakistan and Pakistan Engineering Council. Replying the other arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent made reference to sections 10, 14 and 15 of Pakistan Engineering Council Act. Provisions of sub clause (2) of section 14 and sub-clause (i) of section 14 were highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents. Next it was argued by the learned counsel that the writ petition is in fact directed against a show cause notice and as yet no final decision is made nor any final order is passed therefore, the writ petition is premature. Further, it was added that the Pakistan- Engineering Council has conducted itself fairly, honestly and in the best interest of the profession of engineering and engineering education and qualification in the country.

9. The preliminary objection relating to the issuance of show-cause notice and describing the writ petition as premature may not be a well-taken objection as the petitioner has challenged the entire proceedings before the' Executive Committee of Pakistan Engineering Council for de-recognition of M.I.E. (Pak.) diploma within the context of S. R. O. No.1213(I)96. Challange to .the entire proceedings is not confined to the show-cause notice only but it embraces the entire proceedings therefore, it is not merely a show-cause notice which is put to challenge but the entire proceedings, relating to the de recognition and from that prospect the petition is directed to seek substantive relief which is more comprehensive in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance to the case of Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Faisalabad reported as 2000 MLD 1989 in support of the proposition that a show-cause notice can be called in question by filing a writ petition. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable as it relate to a show-cause notice for the recovery of custom duty. The principle applied in the judgment of Maple Leaf Cement Factory's case may not be applicable to a non-fiscal statute where the proceedings may not end up in nature of distress. However, on difference consideration which is that the present writ petition is directed against the entire proceedings I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the petition is pre-mature. Resultantly I concluded that as the petition is directed to challenge the entire proceedings before the Executive Committee of Pakistan Engineering Council 'for de-recognition of M.I.E. (Pak.), therefore, it is not pre-mature and. is maintainable.

10. Considering the issuance of show cause notice its contents whereof I would have no doubt, on the basis -of record that the said notice was issued on the basis of the report of Inspectors. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report ought to have been a report by all the Inspectors totalling 24 in numbers is fallacious and misconceived. Bare reading of sections 14 and 15 (ibid) would lead to a conclusion that even a report submitted by one individual. Inspector can be made the basis of initiating any proceedings under section 15 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. In the present case the report was submitted by nine inspectors. These Inspectors belonged to different parts of the country and they were eminent engineers. There is nothing on record to impute any ill-will or motive to these individuals who enjoys eminence in the fraternity of engineers. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the latter, dated 24-9-1997 whereby these nine Inspectors were appointed for inspection provided a fetter whereby the independence of these Inspectors was forestalled and abridged is also devoid of any force. Perusal of the letter, dated-24-9-1997 reveals that this letter merely provided a term of reference to the Inspectors for submission of their reports and it was taken, as such. Consequently I do not find any material in support of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Inspectors operated with a pre-determined mind and with pre-determined charter. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected.

11. Dealing with the next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner which was that the qualification of M.I.E.(Pak.) was recognised under the original Act in the First Schedule at Entry No.7 by the Legislature and the same could only be changed or modified by the legislature only appears to be an attractive argument but the analysis of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 shows that power to bring about a change, in the entry of First Schedule has been vested with the Council under the provisions of section 15(2) of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976. In face of the clear jurisdiction vesting in the Council by the Act itself, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner looses any force and the same is rejected. Dealing with the next submission of the petitioner that the Institution of Engineers Pakistan is an institution and any proceedings relating to the de-recognition of any diploma awarded by the Institution would not effect the status of the Institution and would lead to contradiction in term is again a fallacious argument. There are no proceedings of any kind against the Institution of Engineers Pakistan which are in currency, neither is within the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Engineering Council to proceed against the Institution. The mandate of law given to Pakistan Engineering Council relates to the profession of engineering and the promotion of engineering education and qualification and if any proceedings have been initiated by Pakistan Engineering Council within the parameter of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 relating to the recognition or de recognition of an engineering qualification, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Council. It does not lead to any contradiction in terms or otherwise. The object of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 is obviously progressive, dynamic, objective and meant to uplift the values and standard of engineering education in the country so as to check the deterioration in the field of engineering education and work for its improvement and promotion so that Pakistani Engineers may successfully enter in the competitive world of modern science and technology. The function of Pakistan Engineering Council may not be put to arrest by reason of any technical or hyper-technical consideration of rules or for showing any indulgence to a pocket of vested interest. It being a Institution of national stature be allowed to function smoothly within the parameter set down by Pakistan Engineering Council. Monitoring, supervising and examining the sufficiency of examinations, courses of studies and facilities of teaching are the coridoors provided for Pakistan Engineering Council and in the instant case they have not transgressed the limits, therefore, the proceedings conducted by them in relation to the courses of studies, sufficiency of examinations and facilities of teaching made available for the diploma of M.I.E. (Pak.) by the Institution of Engineers Pakistan and issuance of the show-cause notice is in accordance with law and does not suffer with any legal infirmity.

12. As result of my finding in the preceding paragraphs the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

Q.M.H./M.A.K./I-61/L Petition dismissed.