1. Arguments heard record perused. Mr. Habib Anwar advocate, while arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner stated that respondent has been convicted in the year 1987 and the respondent had concealed this fact from the enrollment Committee at the time seeking enrolment He argued that he has not mentioned about his affidavit in reply to this petition.
2. On behalf of the petitioner. Whereas, he argued since the respondent has been convicted in the year 1987 and he has concealed his conviction while applying for enrolment in Punjab Bar Council and concealed the fact before the enrolment committee that is why, he has not mentioned about his affidavit in reply to this petition. Whereas, today, on perusing the file it transpired that respondent has annexed more than one affidavit which are fabricated as the stamp paper have been obtained from Attock, whereas, stamp vender in Fateh Jang, he has further argued if the respondent would have mentioned the fact of conviction at the time of enrolment he would not have been granted licence. He has further argued that since he has obtained licence about ten and half year ago, therefore, from coming to know the fact about conviction of Respondent No. 1 he has filed this petition. He further argued that under Sections 26, 28-A and 39-A respondent is disqualified to be an advocate being a convicted person. It is further argued that respondent was under Rule 5.2(D) he should have disclosed the fact of his conviction before the enrolment committee.
3. Mr. Naqi Abbas Advocate argued on behalf of the respondent that respondent was granted licence on 26-02-1998 by the enrolment committee consisting of Imrana Parveen Baloch, Mian Abdul Qadoos and Mr. Justice Ameer Alam Khan after fully scrutiny his application for enrolment as per the law laid down in legal practitioner & Bar Council Act 1973, & Punjab Bar Council Rules 1974, this order which has been passed by the enrolment Committee under Rule 5(10) has not been challenged at any forum. That during arguments on the demand of petitioner and his counsel Mr. Habib Anwar the original enrolment file of respondent was summond and perusal of this file in presence of petitioner and Mr. Habib Anwar, Advocate, it transpired that the enrolment application of the respondent for lower Court and application of respondent for High Court bear affidavits in which respondent has fully mentioned the fact about registration of case against him and also the fact of his conviction. The counsel for the respondent also argued that enrolment application of Respondent No. 1, for lower Courts and high Courts carries the certificate of Mr. Habib Anwar authenticating good standing moral character, Respondent No. 1 and now to appear against him his misconduct He further argued that respondent was granted licence on 26-09-1999, whereas, licence of HC was granted on 25-01-2001, whereas, Section 28-A was inserted in Legal Practitioner & Bar Council Act, 1973 though act (11) of 2005, which has not retrospective effect that Punjab Local Government Act, 2013. In Section 27 (i) it is mentioned that a convicted person will be eligible for public representation, after five years of his conviction and the same laws had been mentioned in peoples representation act and PEEDA Act.
4. It is further argued that at very early age i.e. at the age of about 19 years the above-mentioned case was registered against him. Since 30 years have been passed but not a single case has been registered against him in these 30 years. He has been granted licence on 26-02-1998 and during his practice as an advocate, about 19 years not even a single application had been filed against him at any forum. He has been remained general Secretary of Fatah Jang Bar Association in the year 2001, Vice President in year 2003 and Vice President 2008, President in the year 2014 and Vice President Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in the year 2013 and in all these capacities he served honestly and with dedication. It was further argued that this application has been filed with mala fide as this time the respondent decided to contest election in opposite penal of Mr. Habib Anwar and petitioner as the opposing candidate were contesting of petitioner for the slot of President and Mr. Sajjad Hussain S/0 Habib Anwar for the slot of General Secretary. On demand of petitioner's counsel the original enrolment file of Mr. Mughees Asghar was summoned in the presence of petitioner and his counsel which transpired that application for enrolment as an advocate of lower Courts and application for enrolment as an advocate of High Court carries the affidavit of respondent in which the fact about and conviction is mentioned. Which proves that respondent has not concealed fact regarding registration of case and his conviction from enrolment Committee of Punjab Bar Council, both enrolment applications of respondent carries the certificate of Mr. Habib Anwar Advocate. Mr. Habib Anwar, advocate who is senior counsel have issued certificate to the respondent to enable him to be enrolled as an advocate by Punjab Bar Council, whether this is appreciable that why he has not mentioned in these certificate, it is also an admitted fact that respondent was granted licence lower Courts on 26-02-1998 and subsequently as an advocate of the High Court on 25-01-2001 whereas, Section 28-A was inserted in year 2005 in L.0 A.B.C.A which has no retrospective effect. It is also an admitted fact that this case was registered against Respondent No. 1. since 1987 no case has been registered against him even no such application has been filed against him. Since 19 years has been passed but no application for misconduct have been filed against him. It is also an admitted fact, he remained office bearer and enjoys best reputation among the colleague. Even otherwise order dated 26-02-1998 and order dated 25-01-2001 of Enrolment Committee granting licence to respondent has not been challenged at any higher forum. The guidance is also sought from 2004 SCM R 303. People Representative Act, PEEDA Act and Punjab Legal Practitioner Act have also been perused. After hearing the arguments perusing the record and taking into consideration all the above mentioned facts and concerned Law on the subject we do not find any force in this petition and dismiss the same.