M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, C.J.---'The supra titled writ petition has been addressed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 whereby vires of the impugned notification dated 05th April, 2017, through which license of Advocacy of petitioner was cancelled by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council, on the basis of stricture made by the apex Court through its order dated 21st March, 2017, has been challenged for having been issued as without lawful authority.
2. Precise facts culminating into filing of the instant writ petition are that petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court on 14th September, 1981. After completing prescribed period of 'practice, he was enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court on 23rd July, 1983. The apex Court previously referred the matter of misconduct of petitioner to the Bar 'Council under Section 38 by suspending his legal practice while exercising powers under Section 51 of the Azad Jammu, and Kashmir Bar Council Act, 1995, through judgment dated 11th May, 2010. However, as Disciplinary Committee could not dispose off complaint within a period of 03 months, therefore, order of suspension pertaining to legal practice of petitioner was declared as vacated by afflux of time, by the apex Court through order dated 2nd May, 2011. The petitioner moved an application before the Supreme Court, in Review Petition No,2/2016, titled "Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Azad Govt. and others" for adjournment on the ground of ailment, stating therein, that his brain activity reduced to 75%, however, certain observations were passed against him by the apex Court through order dated 21st March, 2017. The matter was, however, referred to Bar Council and consequently on the basis of observations made by the Supreme Court, license of petitioner was abrogated by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council, through the impugned notification dated 05th April, 2017. Against the aforesaid impugned notification petitioner previously filed Writ Petition No,721/2017 and impleaded parties to Hon'ble Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, as well as Registrar of the Supreme Court, as respondents Nos,6 and 7, in the said writ petition The single Bench of this Court solicited comments with show cause from all respondents through order dated 26th April, 2017, however later on, when the aforesaid fact came in the notice of the Bench seized with the matter that Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court was also impleaded party by name, the said writ petition was returned in original to petitioner vide order dated 27th April, 2017, hence, the instant subsequent writ petition.
3. The petitioner himself argued case and submitted that Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council, issued the impugned notification dated 05th April, 2017, whereby his license of advocacy was unlawfully abrogated on the basis of order of the Supreme Court without providing him an opportunity of hearing. He contended that through order dated 21st March, 2017, the apex Court only referred the matter to Bar Council for detailed report, however, the Bar Council, cancelled his license in colorable exercise of powers in hasty manner, hence, submitted for admission of writ petition.
4. We have perused the contents of writ petition and examined the appended documents as well as service record of petitioner made available with utmost care.
5. A perusal of record reveals that Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge, of the apex Court passed following stricture against petitioner through order dated 21st March, 2017:-
3. Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, advocate, petitioner, has moved an application for seeking adjournment on the ground of ailment. The relevant contents of the application Head as under:- "That the petitioner who is a known patient of 'reactive depression' owing to having remained constantly in stress oriented atmosphere since 6th March; 2017 has undergone a recurrent attack of the ailment. And has been constrained to restart heavy intoxicating drugs, which keep his brain drowsy and half asleep. Resultantly his brain activity goes reduced to 75%. He is thus not in a befitting position to appear before the Hon'ble Court and participate in proceedings sharply and with full effectiveness."
After going, through the contents of the application, Mr. Raza Ali Khan, the learned Advocate- General, who is also the Chairman of AJ&K Bar Council, was called to the rostrum to apprise the Court, who stated that according to his information, Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi is not holding valid license of the AJ&K, Bar Council. After such statement by the Chairman Bar Council, the position has become more aggravate, which requires thorough probe in the light of the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1995. I would also like to observe here that in a number of cases, Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, Advocate, has moved such like applications. Yesterday, in a case titled Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Ansr Mehmood Awan and others, he also moved an application wherein lie mentioned that his brain activity has reduced to 75%. From the previous record/ pleadings of Mr. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi it depicts that he mostly used contemptuous/scandalizing language to undermine the authority of the Court, which is not expected from a lawyer. I am of the view that this may be due to his ailment, which is supported by different medical certificates/applications submitted by him in different cases. However, to his latest stance taken in the application alarming and serious which cannot be taken lightly. In this scenario, his further continuation in legal profession does not appear to be in the interest of legal profession."
'Underlining is ours for emphasizing.
6. It appears from the impugned notification dated 05th April, 2017, that license of petitioner was cancelled by the Bar Council, on the basis of the aforesaid stricture of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The petitioner impliedly challenged the vires of the aforesaid observations through the instant constitution petition. We are afraid, the stricture supra, on the basis of which, the impugned notification was issued cannot be expunged by this Court, hence, writ petition is not maintainable.
The petitioner could prefer a review petition before the apex Court against the aforesaid observations for expunging the remarks, within 30 days as per the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978.
7. A perusal of memorandum of writ petition reveals that petitioner impleaded Shoukat Ali Kiyani, Advocate/Vice Chairman Bar Council, Chaudhary Khalid Yousaf, Advocate, Chairman Executive Committee Bar Council, Registrar Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Chairman Disciplinary Committee, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council as respondents Nos, 3, 4, 6 and 7, respectively. No any reasons whatsoever, has been shown that why the aforesaid respondents have been impleaded in the line of respondents. The petitioner previously filed Writ Petition No,721/2017 and impleaded Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court, as well as Registrar of the Supreme Court, as respondents Nos,6 and 7, which petition was returned in original to him vide order dated 27th April, 2017. The petitioner again impleaded the same Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge, who recorded judgment dated 09th October, 2012, through which Government notification dated 09th May, 1998, pertaining to dismissal from service of petitioner was restored, whose lordship is Chairman of Disciplinary Committee, in the line of respondents without any lawful justification. It is an admitted fact that no proceedings were ever initiated by Chairman Disciplinary Committee against petitioner, therefore, writ petition merits dismissal due to mis-joinder of parties, hence, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction in favour of petitioner.
8. As per service record of petitioner, he was Secretary to Government BPS-20, however, on the ground of committing forgery and tampering in orders of the Prime Minister, was reverted from BPS-20 to BPS-19,, and then in BPS-18 to BPS-17 and lastly he was reverted as Information Officer BPS-16, and ultimately was dismissed from service vide Government notification dated 09th May, 1998. Against the aforesaid Govt. notification, petitioner filed Writ Petition No,215/1998, titled "Mujahid Husain Naqvi v. Azad Govt. and others", before this Court, which was accepted vide order dated 05th October, 1999. Against the aforesaid order, Azad Government and others filed an appeal before the apex Court, in which difference of opinion arose between two Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court, resultantly, matter was placed before third Judge, who was at the then time, the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Sardar Said Muhammad Khan). The appeal filed by Government and others was accepted vide judgment dated 09th October, 2012. He later on moved an application for recalling judgment dated 09th October, 2012, which was also turned down by the apex Court through order dated 05th December, 2015. Meanwhile petitioner succeeded to obtain an order dated 26th October, 2014, from the Prime Minister for reinstatement in Service, then promotion in BPS-21 since 02nd December, 1997 and then retirement on reaching superannuation w,e,f, 27th September, 2009. The order was not acted upon, hence, he filed Writ Petition No,2277/2014, titled "Mujahid Hussain Naqvi v. Azad Govt. and others" which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court handed down by me (Justice M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, C.J.) with the other member of Bench (Justice Muhammad Sheraz Kiani, J.) vide judgment dated 08th June, 2017.
In this regard paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are reproduced as follows:- "9. A perusal of application of petitioner reveals that petitioner has deliberately concealed the judgment of the apex Court dated 09.10.2012, and by suppressing fact succeeded to obtain a void order of his reinstatement and promotion in DPS-21 since 02.12.1997, as well as retirement after attaining age of superannuation w.e.f 27.09.2009, who has not invoked jurisdiction of this Court with clean 'hands, therefore, is not entitled to equitable relief of writ jurisdiction.
10. The petitioner, therefore, filed the instant writ petition with unclean hands which is ex-facie frivolous, as well as, contemptuous to frustrate the judgment and order of the apex Court of the country.
11. The contention of petitioner that he remained almost unconscious from 2010 to 2015, seems to be falsified. A perusal of judgment of the apex Court dated 09.10.2012, makes it abundantly clear that he himself argued his case and pleaded each and every point pertaining to prove his dismissal order as unlawful and each point was authoritatively resolved by the apex Court of the country. He later on also moved an application for recalling judgment dated 09.10.2012, which too was argued by him. The application was turned down by the Hon'ble Court through order dated 05.12.2015, which proved that his assertion about unconsciousness since 2010 to 2015. is falsified.
Even otherwise the aforesaid point has not been raised by petitioner in memorandum of his writ petition. It is well settled principle of law that a party cannot be allowed to argue its case vis-a-vis to pleadings......"
9. The petitioner concealed the aforesaid fact of his dismissal from service from the Bar Council, who as per Section 24 subsection (2) of AJ&K Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Act, 1995, could not be allowed to practice as lawyer, for five years, which is reproduced as follow: - "24. Persons qualified for admissions as Advocates:-(1)
(a) .................
(b) .................
(c) ........................
(i)..................
(ii)..................
(iii)...................
(d) .................
(e) ...................
(2) A person shall be disqualified from being admitted as an advocate if.-
(i) he was dismissed or ,removed from service of Government or of a public statutory corporation or a charge involving moral turpitude; unless a period of five years, or such less period as the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, has elapsed since his dismissal or removal; or (ii).......................
(iii).................
(3)..................
10.The petitioner, therefore, remained in the legal profession till cancellation of his license vide notification (sic) dismissed Civil Servant, hence, is not entitled to equitable relief of writ jurisdiction even from this angle.
11. The petitioner obtained license to practice in the Judicature of High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 14th September, 1981, while obtained license of the Supreme Court on 23rd July, 1983.
The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Bar Council Act, 1995, was promulgated on 31st December, 1995. At the time of promulgation of the Act, 1995, petitioner was a Civil Servant, hence, was not practicing Advocate. As per record, he was dismissed from service, vide Govt. notification dated 09th May, 1998. After dismissal from service and promulgation of Act, 1995, it appears that he never informed to the Bar Council about his dismissal from service. It reflects that name of petitioner was never inserted in the roll of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council, in accordance with provisions of Sections 21(a), 22(a) and 23(a) of the Act, 1995. Therefore, according to our considered view, petitioner is not entitled to practice in the legal profession till completion of statutory period as postulated under subsection (2) of Section 24 of Act, 1995.
12. The legal profession is known as a noble profession having high traditions and has been catering to the need of the society for a very long time past. Thus, the members of legal fraternity are expected to uphold those traditions and serve the society with utmost respect to Courts, sincerely and honestly. If such are the expectations from a noble profession, its members must conduct themselves which may be worthy of emulation. By doing any act which is contrary to the accepted norms and standards of the aforesaid professions, a member of the legal fraternity not only discredits himself but also brings disrepute to the profession to which he belongs. By such acts the credibility and reputation of the profession as a whole comes under cloud. If any member of the profession falls from such standards, he deserves punishment commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. The conduct of petitioner even before this Court in numberless cases also displayed that his further continuation in legal profession does not appear to be in the interest of legal profession.
13.The crux of above discussion is that admission of writ petition will be a futile exercise, which is hereby dismissed in limine. Consequently, an application moved by petitioner for seeking amendment of writ petition is also. rejected. The service record of petitioner shall be transmitted to Services and General Administration Department forthwith.