Representation
of People Order
(P.O. 155 of
1972)
Arts. 50, 51
and 58.
Under
article 51 all contesting candidates to be joined in an election petition and
under article 52 advance copy of the petition to be dispatched to them by
registered post or delivered personally. In default hereof the petitions will
he. dismissed.
Shawkat Ali
Vs. T.M. Ghyasuddin Ahmed and ors. (1981) 33 DLR 188.
—Copy
of the election petition dispatched by registered post returned uncovered with
remark ‘absent’—Copy duly served. Ibid.
Retired
Judges (Legal Practice) Order, 1962.
How
far the right of an ex-Judge of the High Court who has been removed from his
office to practice, after his removal, is affected by the Ordinance No. II of
1964, read with the provisions of President’s Order 21 of 1962 and Article
166(3) of the Constitution of 1956.
On 31st August, 1959 Mr. Akhlaque Hussam was
removed from the office of a Judge by the President of Pakistan on a report
submitted by the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President.
On
2nd June, 1962 President’s Order No. 21 of 1962, namely, the Retired Judges
(Legal Practice) Order, 1962 was promulgated which, inter alia, provided that a
Judge shall, upon his retirement or resignation from his office (but not
removal), be forthwith entitled to be enrolled, as a Senior Advocate of the
Supreme Court, and also as an Advocate of a High Court, and upon being so
enrolled shall have all the rights of such Senior Advocate or Advocate,
including the right of audience.
Majority
view (Kaikaus, J. contra)—The Legal Practice (Disqualification) Ordinance is a
valid piece of legislation consequently Mr. Akhlaque Hussain’s right to
practice as an Advocate in the High Court of West Pakistan and the Courts
subordinate thereto has been taken away by the aid Ordinance.
Cornelius,
C. J.— lt cannot be the intention of the wording of this Order that, while the
undertaking by a Judge retiring or resigning not to practice should be of no
effect on such Judge’s right to practice it should stand in the way of Judge
who had been removed. The reasonable view is that what was will held from a
removed Judge was the right to claim enrolment.
It
is difficult to hold that in the case of Mr. Akhlaque Hussain, because of the
fact that he was removed from his office, the undertaking continued to have
elect, whereas such an undertaking was avoided in the case of Judges who had
retired or had resigned.
S.
A. Rahman, J. (Expressing a contrary view)— The President’s Order 21 of 1962 in
terms applies only to Judges who have retired or resigned their office but not
to those who have been removed re from.
There
is no warrant in the language employed in Order 21 of 1962 for extending its
benefit to removed Judges in respect of relief from any undertaking or other
constitutional disqualification to practice binding on them as a condition of
service.
As
to the necessity of enacting a statute like the Legal Practice Disqualification
Ordinance 1962, the Chief Justice observed as follows:
‘It
became common practice for ox-Judges to be I practicing in their own High
Court, making submission where previously they made only pronounce. and if
their submissions were subjected to constant criticism by their opponents at the
bar, as well as from the Bench, this would necessarily pro. duce in the public
mind a feeling that the position which these persons enjoyed and were under the
law allowed, during their period on the Bench, was scarcely deserved by
personal merit. Such a feeling, once it commenced, would tend to grow and
eventually to develop into a large doubt in the public mind as to the efficacy
of the entire system.
Government
of Pakistan vs. Akhlaque Hussain (1965) 17 DLR (SC) 545.