Through this petition order dated 08.01.2021 passed by Respondent No. 1 has been assailed.
2. At the outset of hearing, learned counsel has been confronted with the proposition that since an alternate efficacious remedy under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, (XXXV of 1973) (ACT) is available to the petitioners against the order passed by Respondent No. 1 by way of filing . an appeal before the Pakistan Bar . Council, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
3. Learned counsel has conceded to this fact and has not been able to give any plausible explanation as to non- availing of such remedy and the maintainability of this petition.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. -
5. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment reported as Government of Sindh through Secretary Education and Literacy Department and others v. Nizakat Ali and others (2011 SCMR 592) has held that every Court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court. If it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue. The question of assumption of jurisdiction and its exercise has very comprehensively been dealt with and decided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Fauji Foundation and another v . Shamimur Rehman (PLD 1983 SC 457 ) and The State v . Zia ur Rehman and others (PLD 1973 SC 49 ).
6. It has also been held by the Honourable Apex Court that in the wake of availability of an alternate efficacious remedy to a litigant under the law, jurisdiction of this Court is even otherwise barred. Reliance can be placed on Indus Tranding and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842), Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813 ) and Muhammad Abbasi v. S.H.O.
Bhara Kahu and 7 others (PLD 2010 SC 969 ).
7. Placing the afore-noted case law in juxtaposition with the facts of the present case, it is manifest that under sub- section (2) of Section 13 of the Act a right of appeal has been provided to the petitioners against the order passed by Respondent No. 1, which they have failed to avail, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
8. Another aspect which makes this petition not maintainable is that against the Bar Councils and/or its functionaries (including Punjab Bar Council) a writ petition is not maintainable. For reference reliance can be placed on a judgment reported as Mirza Muhammad Nazakat Baig v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of law and Justice, Islamabad-and another (2020 SCMR 631 ).
9. In view of.the above, this petition being not maintainable is dismissed in limine .