ABDUL SHAXURUL SALAM, J.-The appellant was enrolled as an Advocate of the Lahore High Court on 12th December, 1975. He applied before the Chief Justice and Judges for certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Enrolment Committee constituted for the purpose considered the matter. The appellant was personally heard. His case was deferred for a year on 4-2-1981. He challenged the decision through constitutional petition, Writ Petition No. 1368 of 1981, and having failed, has filed this Intra-Court Appeal.
2. The appellant referred to number of judgments like PLD 1975 Lah. 495; PLD 1977 Lah. 117, PLD 1980 Lah. 561, PLD 1981 Lah. 181 and contended that the Enrolment Committee should have either granted him the certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court, or, given reasons, which were not, for refusing to grant the certificate or for deferring his case for a specified period, as had happened to the appellant.
3. We pointed out to the appellant who appeared in person that as a learned counsel he would realise that if the Enrolment Committee were required as a matter of law to give reasons for refusing to grant the certificate or for deferring, .Those might be more damaging to him, than if no reasons were given, even as an Advocate of the High Court itself, but the appellant insisted that as a matter of law, it should be declared that the Enrolment Committee should either grant the certificate or give reason for refusal or deferment.
4. We requested the learned Chairman of the Provincial Bar Council to appear in this case. . Mr. Abid Hassan Minto. a veteran Bar Councillor, who happened to be present in Court was also asked to assist. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, learned Chairman of the Provincial Bar Council who is the Advocate-- General of the Province and by tradition and convention principal law officer and leader of the Bar of the Province, submitted that the Enrolment Committee functions as a domestic body of professional elite and if it felt fit either to refuse or defer the case for a particular period, for the candidate to acquire more knowledge and experience, the Committee acted within its lawful authority and the question of issuance of writ did not arise. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate of the Supreme Court and member of the Bar Councils for many years, stated that as a matter of policy, it would not be desirable to require giving of reasons for refusal or deferment for grant of certificate of fitness though there must be sound reasons for doing so.
5. We beard the appellant at length. The statutory provisions on the point are as follows :- Section 28 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 (XXXV of 1973) lays down;- "Persons qualified for admission as Advocates of the Supreme Court--- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate of the Supreme Court if he fulfils such conditions as may be laid down in this behalf from time to time by the Rules of the Supreme Court and has .Paid to the Pakistan Bar Council such enrolment fee as may be prescribed by that Council,"
Order IV, rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, .Provides as follows :- "A person shall not be qualified for being enrolled as an Advocate unless he-
(a) has been for not less than 5 years enrolled as an Advocate in a High Court ;
(b) has been certified in a duly authenticated form by the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court that he is a fit and proper person to appear and plead as an Advocate before the Supreme Court; Provided that Chief Justice and Judges may ?Rant the enrolment of a person not qualified as aforementioned, if in their judgment, he is qualified by knowledge; ability and experience to be enrolled as an Advocate."
The statutory instruments vest the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court with the authority and discretion to decide in their wisdom the grant or other--wise of the fitness certificate. No reasons were required to be stated, nor, was that advisable in the circumstances. The judgments the appellant referred relate to giving of reasons either for impounding passport, decertification of films, or, grant of licence for publication. 'Those are matters on different plane. The decisions therein are arrived at by administrative, or quasi---administrative bodies affecting private citizens.
The principles which apply to the relationship of the citizens and the authorities are different than those applicable to domestic forums, especially those of professional body and moreso the legal fraternity. The Advocates and the Judges function as a body to determine delicate questions of rights and liabilities of people at large and at times of far-reaching consequences in future the functions can be performed efficiently only if the participants have mutual confidence and respect for each other. When an Advocate appearing before the High Court for a sufficiently long time, say five years, and asks for grant of certificate of fitness to be enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court and if the two learned Judges think, which they would obviously do after good deal of consideration for sound reasons because they would be denying or deferring statutory benefits, that he should not get, or, wait for a year as in this case, it would be proper and befitting that the gentleman accepts the verdict with grace and improves himself to come up to the expectation of his peers. If he were to insist, as the appellant does, that the Enrolment Committee must give reasons for its decision, then, it may be that on some occasions the learned Judges of the Enrolment Committee would have to say that the applicant was not being granted the certificate or was being deferred because he lacked integrity, or, was either not sufficiently learned or experienced or has not acquired culture, good manners or polish for practising at the highest level in the country. Whatever be the reason, if that is stated on record which will be public, that would be more damaging to the Advocate than refusal of the certificate or deferment. His standing and reputation as an Advocate of the High Court, too, would be adversely affected gravely. The learned Chairman of the Provincial Bar Council and the seasoned Advocate of the Supreme Court both are of the view that since the matter is dealt with by a domestic body of profes--sional people, it is not proper that the Enrolment Committee may b obliged to give reason for refusal or deferment in the matter of grant of the certificate. We agree with them that it would be against the inter. Of the profession and public at large as well, if the Enrolment committee is requried to give reason for its refusal or deferment of a matter for the grant of fitness certificate. No statutory provision has been cited requiring giving of reason by the Enrolment Committee which functions on behalf of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. Wisdom does not demand disclosure of reasons and there being no requirement of law, we are of the view that the appellant---s insistence for recording of reasons by the Enrolment Committee for the refusal or deferment of the matter regarding the grant of certificate of fitness for the Supreme Court, is not well based on sound ground, principle, or, law.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed. Since the matter was raised as a question of principle, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.