Shahid Jamil Khan, J. The petitioner seeks direction for decision on Revision Petition, pending before the Secretary , School Education Department, Punjab.
Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, at the outse t, raised objection that this writ petition is filed with incorrect certificate, showing it to be a first petition on the matter , whereas earlier petition i.e. W.P.No.68802 of 2020, against the same issue of termination from service, was dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact is mentioned in the writ petition and explains that earlier petition was against the appellate order and through this petition, direction is sought for decision on Revision Petition. He, however , has not denied that the earlier petition was also filed through him and appeal was against termination of the petitioner from service.
3. The distinction drawn and explanation of fered by learned counsel for the petitioner is totally absurd.
Rule 1(a)(ix) of Part A to Chapter 1 (Judicial Business) of the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore (Volume V) is reproduced hereunder:- "1. (a) All judicial matters to be brought before the Court Shall:
(ix) be accompanied by a certificate to the effect that as per instructions of the petitioner/applicant/appellant no such petition/application/appeal has earlier been filed in the High Court in this matter ."
[emphasis supplied]
4. The words "judicial matter" used in this Clause means that any lis or controversy , brought before High Court through 'petition, application or appeal' . Each instance of bringing a controversy or lis before the Court in any mode, ibid, has to be disclosed in the certificate by the petitioner or his counsel on instruction.
If petition, application or appeal is filed through a counsel, signing of the certificate is responsibility of the counsel, who is obligated to disclose correct information on instructions or otherwise. Any misstatement would constitute misconduct and would lead to proceeding before the respective Bar Council.
Under similar circumstances, the misstatement was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of Punjab Bar Council for proceeding against the Counsel in Hafiz Muhammad Akram v. Mansoor Sarwar Khan, Barrister-at-Law and 3 others ( 2006 CLC 40 ), operative part of which is reproduced for quick reference:- "In the subsequent Writ Petition No.144 78 of 2005 titled as Mansoor Sarwar Khan v. Mr. Rauf, District and Sessions Judge etc. neither the learned counsel for the petitioner nor petitioner disclosed the fact that earlier Writ Petition No.14439 of 2005 was filed and dismissed on 8.8.2005. they filed the subsequent Writ Petition No.14478 of 2005 suppressing the fact that the earlier writ petition was filed against the same person and it was dismissed.
The conduct of the learned counsel and the petitioner is extremely condemnable and unlike a Lawyer . It grossly infringed upon the code of ethics provided in the Legal and Practitioner Act, 1973. It also constitutes an offence under Pakistan Penal Code, the office is directed to transmit certified copies of all orders on this file as well as petitions and annexures to the Secretary Punjab Bar Council to place it before the Disciplinary Committee to take an appropriate action , particularly , against Mansoor Sarwar Khan Barrister at Law and others, involved in this matter . He is liable to be tried and penalized for misconduct. His misconduct be also entered into his record/file.
Writ Petition No.14478 of 2005 was allowed in view of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1157/L of 2005 in Civil Petition No.1528/L of 2005 , Mehmood Ahmad Butt and others v. R.O. However , any order obtained fraudulently is not a legal order . Moreover , the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is conferred upon the High Court as a discretionary jurisdiction, the purpose of this jurisdiction is to foster justice and right a wrong. The purpose is not to encourage or aid injustice, or to overlook and ignore fraud and cheating. The superior Courts of Pakistan have expressed themse lves sufficiently in several cases on this point. For reference, a few may be cited, as PLD 1989 SC 166, PLD 1973 SC 236, 1981 SCMR 231; PLD 1997 SC 351 and PLD 2001 SC 415 ."
[emphasis supplied]
5. The certificate, ibid, is necessary for all judicial matters brought before the High Court. The practic e of filing successive bail petitions, without mentioning the earlier bail petitions, arising from an FIR, filed by the same accused or co-accused was deprecated in Nabi Bakhsh and 3 others v. The State (2009 PCr.LJ 690), by observing that lack of knowledge is no excuse for a counsel, who is under a duty towards Court to disclose every necessary information by observing due diligence. In Muhammad Munir v. The State (PLD 2017 Peshawar 10), learned Peshawar High Court, deprecated such practice, giving detailed reasons and laying emphasis on the duties of the members of legal fraternity . The judgment by August Supreme Court in Nazir Ahmed and another v.
The State and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 241) was referred, wherein principles of propriety and practice, to curb successive filing of bail application, were enunciated.
Needless to say that principles and law enunciated through the judgments, ibid, squarely applies to all judicial matters including petitions, applications and appeals brought before this Court.
6. This Court was mindful of referring the matter to Bar Council and to dismiss this petition with costs, however , lenient view is taken. Learned counsel and through him the legal fraternity is expected to be careful and diligent, while signing the certificate in any matter brought before this Court.
7. The Office is also directed to counterch eck that the certificate commensurates with annexures of the petition, is properly worded and duly signed. If the petition is second, as per certificate, file of the earlier matter be appended with fresh petition. If earlier matter is pending, the fresh petition be fixed before the Court, where earlier matter is pending.
Since this Court is not approached with clean hands, therefore, following the decision in Abbas Baig v. The State (1998 MLD 1604 ), this petition is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.