GHULAM HASSAN M. PARYANI Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST

NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑ This Constitution Petition has been filed by Mr. Ghulam Hussain Paryani, Advocate seeking the following reliefs:‑‑‑

(1) "Direction to the respondents to refrain from carrying out or following any legal advice except the legal advice of the petitioner or of any other Advocates appointed by the Ministry of Justice Division.

(2) Declaring that the act of the respondents by not complying with the decision of the Ministry of Justice Division have committed illegality hence therefore have subjected themselves to the legal action by the' Government of Pakistan respondent No.4, and further directing the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to comply with the impugned nomination of the petitioner as part time legal advisor of K.P.T.

(3) To grant directions to the respondent No.1 Government of Pakistan to take legal action against the respondent No.2 for deliberate defiance of the decision of the Ministry of Justice Division.

(4) Award of special damages to the petitioner against the respondent No.1 for his gross negligence on his part which being intentional wrong further is tantamount to an act of mala fide hence personally wrong liable under superior Courts decision to pay damages not only to the petitioner but to the Ministry of Justice Division as well."

2. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the office memorandum, dated 13‑9‑1987 of the Justice Division, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Government of Pakistan, which memorandum reads as follows:‑‑‑

"Office Memorandum

Subject: APPOINTMENT OF LEGAL ADVISER

The undersigned is directed to convey the decision of the Justice Division for appointment of Mr. Ghulam Hussain H. Paryani, Advocate, Yousuf Chambers, Near Denso Hall, MA. Jinnah Road, Karachi as part‑time Legal Adviser to the Karachi Port Trust with immediate effect on a monthly retainer of Rs.1,000 till further orders.

This issues with the approval of Additional Secretary."

3. According. to Mr. Ghulam Hussain Paryani, the aforesaid memorandum, copies whereof have been sent to Ministry of Communications, K.P.T. and to the petitioner, was binding on K.P.T. and they were required to implement the same and as it was not implemented, this Constitutional petition has been filed. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Ghulam Hussain Paryani and Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, Advocate for K.P.T. Mr. Naimur Rehman, Standing Counsel, Government of Pakistan was busy before another Bench but he left a copy of the letter, dated 9‑2‑1981 addressed to him by the Solicitor Government of Pakistan which has been taken on record.

4. Mr. Ghulam Hussain Paryani has relied upon two legal provisions. Firstly, he relied upon sub‑rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules of Business 1973 to argue that by the aforesaid office memorandum he became Legal Adviser of K.P.T. on the terms mentioned in the said memorandum in spite of the fact. that K.P.T. did not give effect to said memorandum. The aforesaid Rule 14(1) is as follows:‑‑‑

"14. Consultation with the Law Division‑‑‑(1) The Law Division shall be consulted:‑‑‑‑

(a) on all legal questions arising out of any case.

(b) on the interpretation of any law.

(c) before the, issue of or authorization of the issue of an order, rule regulation, bye‑law, notification etc. in exercise of statutory power.

(d) deleted vide Cabinet Division No.104/10/76‑Min., dated 26‑3‑1976.

(e) before instituting criminal or civil proceedings in a Court of law in which the Government is involved.

(f) whenever criminal or civil proceedings are instituted against the Government at the earlier possible stage; and

(g) before the appointment of a legal adviser in any Division or any office or corporation under its administrative control and the Law Division will make its recommendations after consultation with the Attorney General:'

The aforesaid rule inter alia, requires other Divisions of the Pakistan Government to consult the Law Division before the appointment of a Legal Adviser. This rule does not provide that the Law Division can give a direction to any other Division to appoint a Legal Adviser and that such a direction would be binding on other Divisions. Rule 14(1) therefore does not advance the case of the petitioner.

5. Reliance was placed on section 79‑A of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, according to which provision, all acts and proceedings of the Board of Trustees of the K.P.T. are subject to the control of the Federal Government and the Federal Government is empowered to cancel, suspend or modify any such acts or proceedings. This provision also does not help the petitioner in, support of the proposition that by the aforesaid memorandum the petitioner, became the Legal Adviser of K.P.T.

6. No other provision was relied upon or argument advanced by the petitioner. We find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

AA./G‑270/K Petition dismissed.