' Briefly stated facts of the case out of which this regular second appeal has arisen are that the Disciplinary Committee of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, the appellant in this appeal issued a charge-sheet to one Mst. Naseem Akhtar for using unfair means in the Examination Hall and calling upon her to answer the charges. She sought a permission to engage a learned counsel to appear on her behalf. This application was dismissed, however, she was informed that she can cross-examine the witnesses in person. Mehr Ahmad Khan who is respondent in this appeal filed a suit against Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha, seeking a declaration to the effect that he was entitled to appear before the disciplinary committee on behalf of Mst. Naseem Akhtar. He also sought a declaration for permanent injunction for restraining the board from refusing to appear before the disciplinary committee as an Advocate. It may be mentioned here that Mst. Naseem Akhtar who sought permission to engage a learned counsel did not challenge the order of refusal passed by the appellant Board. This suit has been contested by the appellant on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit; that present plaintiff has no legal right to appear as an Advocate before the disciplinary committee inasmuch as the said committee is neither a law Court nor a Tribunal and that without impleading of Mst. Naseem Akhter as a party the suit cannot proceed. Learned trial Court after framing various issues vide judgment and decree dated 19-5-1971 decreed the suit holding that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit and that the plaintiff was entitled to represent Mst. Naseem Akhtar in the enquiry against her by the disciplinary committee and that the suit was competent without impleadment of Mst. Naseem Akhtar as well as Controller of Examination etc. Regular. First Appeal filed by the appellate Board was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sargodha vide judgment and decree dated 15-9-1971. Learned District Judge held that as there is no prohibition in the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in 1968 for an advocate to appear before the disciplinary committee as counsel which according to the learned lower Court was a quasi- tribunal, the plaintiff respondent has a right to appear in the case as advocate on behalf of Mst.
Naseem Akhtar. Learned District Judge also held that by virtue of provisions of section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1965, the respondent has a right to appear before all tribunals including the disciplinary committee. Learned District Judge further held that the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the suit inasmuch as he has been deprived of his legal fee which he may have received if he was allowed to appear as an Advocate. These two judgments and decrees have been challenged in this regular second appeal.
2. Mr. Zainul Abidin and Dr. M. Mohyuddin Qazi, Advocates have appeared on behalf of the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent, although registered P.C. notice has been issued to the respondent for today, resultantly, respondent is proceeded against ex parte.
Both the learned counsel appearing for the appellant have argued that the two learned Courts below have misinterpreted the provision of section 22 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1965 and have illegally held that a disciplinary committee is a quasi-judicial tribunal and hence the plaintiff is entitled to appear and practise before the disciplinary committee. Learned counsel have further argued that the respondent in fact had no cause of action to file the suit inasmuch as Mst. Naseem Akhtar who sought permission to engage a counsel and whose request was turned down was the only person who may have cause of action and she has not challenged the order passed by the appellate Board, the respondent had no cause of action to challenge the decision of the appellant Board hence the plaint in this case should have been rejected at the very beginning.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. Section 22 of the Legal Practitioners Act reads as under:-- "(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall be entitled to practiso the profession of law unless he is an advocate.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the rules made thereunder and any other law for the time being in force, an advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout Pakistan, and to appear, act and plead before any Court or Tribunal in Pakistan."
' It is very clear that a legal practitioner is entitled as a right to practice throughout Pakistan and to appear before any Court or Tribunal in Pakistan. A disciplinary committee by no stretch of imagination can be held to be a quasi judicial-tribunal. It may be quasi-judicial committee but definitely it is not a tribunal, the provision of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 have clearly created a distinction between the disciplinary committee and tribunal which are two different entities. An Advocate shall have a right to practise and appear on behalf of person before the Court and tribunals but definitely not before disciplinary committee. Even otherwise, the respondent in this case has no cause of action to file the suit. Mst. Naseem Akhter sought permission to engage a learned counsel to appear in this behalf before the disciplinary committee but permission was not granted to her. She accepted this decision, therefore, the respondent who has yet to be engaged as an advocate if permission was granted definitely has no cause of action to challenge the decision of the Board. Findings of the two learned Courts below therefore, with regard to the right of practice and appearance of the respondent before the disciplinary committee as an advocate as well as competency of the suit and locus standi of the respondent are erroneous of law and are therefore, set aside.
' Resultantly, this regular second appeal is accepted, impugned judgments and decree passed by the two learned Courts below are set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.