This Intra-Court Appeal arises out of the order dated 6-10-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No,10590 of 2006.
2, The facts giving rise to the present Intra-Court Appeal are to the effect that the writ petitioner- appellant herein Mr. Abdus Sattar Chughtai Malik, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan has filed the writ petition with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the petition in hand may please be accepted, consequently amendment of Rule 9(a) in respect of reduction of the tenure qua the Supreme Court Bar Association from two years to one year approved by the Association vide meeting dated 28-2- 2003 may kindly be declared illegal, unlawful and inoperative, resultantly Notice of the meeting dated 27-9-2006 may also be declared without lawful authority and be set aside in the interest of justice.
' It is further prayed that operation of the Notice dated 27-9-2006 regarding the Annual General Meeting to be convened on 29-10-2006 and consequential election of the Supreme Court Bar Association may please be suspended till the final disposal of the writ petition for fair administration of justice."
3. The main grievance of the appellant in the writ petition is that the reduction of the term of the Office Bearers and the Executive Committee of the. Supreme Court Bar Association from two years to one year is not in the interest of the Association and the elected office- , bearers are not in a position to achieve their object for which they have contested the election and the term of one year for Supreme Court Bar Association is ridiculously low and deficient for performing of their obligations to achieve the goal.
4. The arguments of the appellants have been opposed before the learned Sirigle Judge by Mr. Ali Akbar Qureshi, Secretary and Mr. Zaka-ur-Rehman Vice President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who submitted that amendment so made in the Rules 8, 9 and 12 is in the best interest of all the members of the association who represent all the four provinces of the country.
5. None of the office bearer or member of the executive committee has supported the appellant's case and if the amendment made in the Constitution of the Supreme Court Bar Association is re- called their term for more one year would be extended.
6. All the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, who are equipped with knowledge, experience and wisdom, if they desire so, can convene the meeting of the house and resolve the controversy raised by the appellant. He should have agitated the matter in the assembly of the lawyers of Supreme Court Bar Association. The General House is empowered to make the amendment in the relevant rules of the Association provided in Rule 43 ibid. The appellant has not resorted to this remedy, the reasons best known to him.
7. No Elected Representative of the Supreme Court Bar Association or any other members of. The Bar has supported the appellant in this matter. The contentions of the appellant having no force are repelled.
8. The rules are not statutory in nature, therefore, any violation of the statutes, regulations or rules would not attract the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In this context reference can be made to the cases of Dr. M. Afzal Beg v. University of Punjab and others (1999 PLC (C.S.) 60), Khalid Hussain v. The Chancellor, (Governor of Punjab) and others (NLR 1995 CLJ 219), Muhammad Umar Malik, v. The Muslim Commercial Bank through its President, Karachi and 2 others (1995 SCMR 453) and Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1984 SC 194).
9.Under section 55(u) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973, Pakistan Bar Council has powers in matters of recognition and functioning of the Supreme Court Bar Association or any Bar Association of national level whereas section 56 of the same Act expressly and necessarily intendment, empowers Punjab Bar Council to adjudicate matters of recognition and functions of all Bar Associations in the Province of Punjab.
9-A Under Rule 56 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973, the Punjab Bar Council had framed the rules called as "Memorandum of Association" which are applicable to all the Bar Associations of the Punjab except the High Court Bar Association. No rule has been framed by the Pakistan Bar Council in this regard for functioning of a Supreme Court Bar Association or any Bar Association at the national level.
9-B The appellant has been asked to establish that whether the rules of the Supreme Court Bar Association are statutory in nature, could not respond.
10. The Parliament is the law-making authority. It passes the Acts and empowers the Government under the relevant Act to make Rules for carrying on the business. A statute' is the formal "expression" in writing of the will of the legislative organ in a State. A 'Statute' is a declaration of the law, as it exists or as shall be from the time at which such statute is, to take effect. It is usually called an Act of the Legislature. It expresses the collective will of that body. A Statute is the highest constitutional formulation of law, the means by which supreme legislature, after the fullest deliberation expresses its final will.
11. "Statute law' is defined as the will of the nation, expressed by the Legislature, expounded by the Courts of Justice. If the Parliament is not in session then the laws are enforced through the Ordinances issued by the President or the Governor expressing will of the nation as the case may be. So, the Act passed by the Parliament and the Ordinance issued by the nation would be called the "Statutory Law.
12. The Rules framed under the powers conferred by an Act are integral part of the Act and these Rules are called Statutory Rules and these are held to be part of the parent Act. It can do anything if within its scope. The Rules or the Bye-Laws made under the Statutes or Act cannot over ride the provisions of other Statute. Neither the Rules control the construction to be placed on the provisions of the Act nor they can enlarge the meaning of the section. The Rules are framed under the Act in aid to construction of ambiguous Statutes. The Rules under the Act shall be made by the Authority, empowered under the Act to frame the Rules or Bye-Laws. No other authority who is not empowered under the Act make the Rules. A Rule Making Body also cannot frame the Rules in conflict with or derogating from the substantive provisions of law or Statute under which the Rules are framed.
13. Where the statutory corporation, body or organization enact laws, rules of their own they are called bye-laws. The term bye-laws applied to the local laws or regulations made by the public bodies of municipal kind or concerned with local Government or by Corporations, or organizations, Universities, or societies formed for commercial or other purposes including gas, water, railway companies, educational institutions, trade unions, etc. And these bye-laws must be made sanctioned and published in the manner prescribed by Statute which authorizes them. Bye-laws (Rules and Regulations) are framed by the Corporation or statutory bodies for carrying out their purpose or administration all Bye-Laws made by subordinate authorities are subject to system of check. The Bye-Laws are required the approval of different concerned Government Departments.
The Rules or Bye-Laws not framed by the Government or framed by the Corporation, if are not approved by the Government would be called non-statutory rules. A reference in this context can be made to the cases of Anwar Hussasin v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others (PLD 1984 SC 194), Mr. Anisa Rehman v. P.I.A.C. And another (1994 SCMR 2232), University of the Punjab, Lahore v. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093), Khalid Hussain v. The Chancellor (Government of Punjab) and others (NLR 1995 CU 219), and Ijaz Hussain Suleri v. The Registrar and another 1999 SCMR 2381).
14. The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Body, the Organization of lawyers, who are entitled to practise in the Supreme Court of Pakistan it has not been constituted under any Act of the Parliament. It is a non-statutory body, therefore, conditions or rules framed by this body would also be non-statutory rules and having no legal backing. The writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against a body, organization not constituted under the law would not be competent.
15. The appellant has not been able to assist the Court to believe that the rules of the Supreme Court Bar Association are statutory in nature.
16. In view of the above discussion and in following the dictum laid down by the. Honourable Supreme Court in the preceding paragraphs, we find no substance in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.