' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- ' CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 199 OF 2010:-- ' The learned AOR for the petitioner does not press this review petition. Dismissed.
' CIVIL REVIEW PETITION NO. 129 OF 2010:
2. Mr. Kamal Azfar, Serial Advocate Supreme Court read out a written statement (not filed in Court) and stated that though it was always a privilege to appear and assist the apex Court, but in the instant case, the Federation of Pakistan had taken away brief from him, and instructed Dr. Khalid Ranjha to appear and argue the case. It was pointed out to him that in his letter dated 30th October, 2010, after having tendered resignation from the post of Advisor to the Prime Minister against which he was appointed a day or so before the hearing of the petition fixed on 13th October, 2010, he had stated that he was available to argue the case. The contents of the letter are reproduced below:- "This has reference to your letter dated 29 October 2010 Ref: C.R. P. No. 129 of 2010 SCJ.
' I have subsequently resigned on 19th October 2010 by letter addressed to the President of Pakistan and also informed the Pakistan Bar Council by the letter dated 27 October, 2010.
' Copies of my resignation to the President of Pakistan and the letter to the Pakistan Bar Council are attached.
' I hope this clarifies the position that acceptance of resignation is not necessary in this case."
' As has been observed in the case of Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan, Karachi PLD 2007 Supreme Court 52 at page 67: "The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in present.
' I hope this clarifies the position that acceptance of resignation is not necessary in this case."
3. In the above background, we have pointed out to Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court that in the light of the order dated 5th April, 2011 passed by one of us (Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J.) in Chambers, his presence would be appreciated as being the lead counsel he has to appear in the Court. Therefore, no one else on his behalf can be allowed to argue the case at this stage, as in terms of Order XXVI rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, no unavoidable circumstances exist for exercising such power. Even otherwise, as is apparent from the cases reported as Muhammad Younas v. State (PLD 2005 SC 93), Mukhtar Ahmad v. State (PLD 2003 SC 126), Feroze Din v. Sardar Muhammad (2002 SCM R 1993), H. Malik Amanullah v. Khyber Khan (2008 SCM R 1723) as well as the recent order dated 1st April, 2011 passed in Civil Review Petition No. 46 of 2011 in Constitution Petition No. 10 of 2011 etc., this Court has always discouraged substitution of counsel except in unavoidable circumstances, therefore, permission to substitute counsel at this stage, that too subject to law, cannot be granted. On this, he prayed for a short adjournment to seek instruction. Accordingly, we re-assembled at 11-30 a.m. He stated that some more time be given to him so that he may contact the competent authority. In the interest of justice, we adjourn this case for 12-4-2011.