' Heard. He brought this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 on the ground that the respondent i,e, learned District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad made some oral order whereby he was directed to withdraw from the Court. The petitioner has contended in the petition that he being a citizen of Pakistan and the proceedings in the Courts are open to every one, therefore, he was entitled to sit in the Court and the verbal order of the learned District and Sessions Judge calling upon him to withdraw from the Court as long as the aforesaid learned Presiding Officer was holding the charge was illegal. This order according to the petitioner was allegedly against his fundamental rights as enumerated in Articles 8, 9, 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
2. It was further contended that the petitioner intended to enter the legal profession after earning his law-degree for which he was studying and as such he was keen to watch the Court proceedings sheerly out of liking for his professional working as a lawyer.
3. Parawise comments were called for from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad which have been received in which it has been admitted that the petitioner was verbally directed not to come to the Court. It was also admitted that the petitioner while appearing before the Court on 6-10-1997 had presented a review petition, whereby a prayer was made that the verbal order passed by the Court on 4-10-1997 be withdrawn. However, that review petition was returned to the petitioner asking him to submit the same after removing contemptuous material and wording it politely so that it may be considered. This was allegedly done because the petitioner was of young age and the learned District and Sessions Judge did not want to involve him in the contempt proceedings. It was stated in the comments that the petitioner used to visit the Court-room of the learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad and would occupy the chairs reserved for lawyers. He also appeared once or twice on behalf of Sardar Abdul Sami Khan, Advocate when his cases were called. Upon a Court question, the petitioner had informed the learned District and Sessions Judge that he was neither a party nor a counselor a clerk. It was in that perspective that the petitioner was allegedly restrained to appear in the cases in future. Despite that the petitioner did not discontinue occupying the chairs meant for lawyers, which raised suspicion in the mind of the learned Presiding Officer, who inquired from him about his attitude. The learned Presiding Officer was given to understand that the petitioner was allowed to use and sit in the office of Syed Asghar Hussain Shah Sabzwari, Advocate a Senior Lawyer and Member of Punjab Bar Council, but being dissatisfied with his conduct had allegedly banned his entry into his office. Besides that the learned Presiding Officer also came to know that the petitioner was rusticated while he was a student of Islamic University, Islamabad.
4. It was in the aforesaid background that the petitioner's entry in the Court-room was banned.
However, it was made clear that he could enter the Court-room which was open to public if he had any case in the Court or any genuine business to pursue.
5. When confronted with the above report, of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad the petitioner denied that he had conducted contemptuously but admitted that he was neither a lawyer nor had any business or case in the Court, but he was visiting the Court-room on every date to learn professional working as a lawyer. He also denied that he was ever rusticated as a student from Islamic University, Islamabad or that his entry was banned in the Chamber of Mr. Sabzwari, Advocate aforesaid. It was, therefore, submitted that refusal on the part of the respondent to allow him to sit in the Court-room has infringed his fundamental rights.
6. I have considered the foregoing submission which involved some factual matters about which inquiry cannot be made in this writ petition vis-a-vis banning of entry of the petitioner in the office of Mr. Sabzwari, Advocate or his rustication as a student from Islamic University, Islamabad as it would be out of the scope of this petition. It is enough to say that the petitioner is a young man, who according to his own showing is a student of law and has a burning desire to become a lawyer for which he has been allegedly visiting the Courts to learn the professional working.
Needless to say that the petitioner has not yet taken the degree in law nor he has a licence issued under the Bar Councils Act to appear in any Court. In such an event, it is obvious that he cannot attend any Court nor represent any party as a lawyer nor he can appear on behalf of any lawyer as he has done once or twice as reported by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad.
Had the learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance of this issue, it would have been actually a serious matter calling for some cognizable action against the petitioner. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Islamabad was liberal enough not to take cognizance of such appearance by petitioner on behalf of another lawyer while he was not competent to appear in the Court to pursue a case. However, the learned District and Sessions Judge has submitted further that the petitioner may enter or sit in his Court-room provided he has any matter to pursue in his personal capacity as his Court is open to every one.
7. In view of the foregoing facts, I am of the view that there is no violation of any fundamental right of the petitioner as alleged in this petition, which is totally misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed. 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.