1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.--Through this petition, the petitioner seeks the following main reliefs:--
(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ against the respondents with the direction that Rule 175 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1965 and the Rules 50 and 51 of the Sindh Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1991 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner.
(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Letter No,1040/PBS.Sec/96, dated 19th August, 1996 is of no legal effect in the case of the petitioner as the same is void, illegal, and bad in law and may be quashed.
(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the directions to the respondent No,1 to issue the certificate of Enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of the interview held by the Enrolment Committee of the respondent No,1 at Karachi on 18th January, 1996 at 9-30 a.m. In the Chamber of Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial, the Chairman of the Enrolment Committee."
2. ' Briefly the facts as convassed before us by the petitioner are that he is a law graduate and was enrolled as an Advocate by the respondent No,2 on 22-10-1973 under the provisions of the West Pakistan Bar Councils, Act and Rules, 1965 where after he commenced his legal practice. It was only in the year 1979 that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Legal Advisor by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation in Grade-17 and with the passage of time, the petitioner is now the Legal Advisor in Grade-19 in the District Municipal Corporation, East Karachi. By virtue of the assignments held by him, the petitioner appeared and pleaded cases for and against the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation in various subordinate Courts, representing the department. In addition to such functions, the petitioner had also engaged himself in tendering legal advice to the department in matters relating to legal field. Based on his standing and working in the legal profession with the department, and simultaneous appearance in the Courts of law, the petitioner became entitled for enrolment as an Advocate of the High Court of Sindh, when he applied to the respondent No,2 after being qualified as per the requisitions laid down in the Sindh Bar Council Act, 1973. Consequently on 20-8-1982, the petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Sindh.
3. ' Our attention has been drawn to the aspect that at the time when the petitioner was to join the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, he had specifically inquired from the respondent No,2 whether there is any bar for him to join any service in the department as a Legal Advisor. Upon such query, having been made by the petitioner, the respondent No,2 had supplied two Resolution passed by the respondent No,2 which in effect did not warrant the suspension of the licence of the petitioner under section 50 and 51 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. For the purposes of ready reference the Resolutions passed by the Sindh Bar Council are reproduced herein in extenso:-- "EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF ENROLMENT COMMITTEE OF THE SINDH AND BALOCHISTAN BAR COUNCIL HELD ON 31-8-1974 UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF HIS LORDSHIP MR. JUSTICE FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM.
4. AGENDA ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2: ' To consider application for restoration of licence made by Mr. Sardar Khan Marvat. ' and ' To consider application for enrolment of High Court made by Mrs. Naeem Hussain Nigar.
5. ' The applicants are admittedly working as a Law Officer in public organizations. They are salaried officials. Rule 8 of Chapter IV of Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes provide that as a general rule an advocate will not carry on any other profession or business or be an active partner in or a salaried official or servant in connection with any such profession or business. The rule is not a total bar against an advocate carrying on-any business or profession but as a general rule he is expected not to carry on or be in service in any profession or business unrelated to law. It cannot, therefore, be said that applicants are acting in contravention of the rule as they are salaried law officers. There are a number of gentlemen employed as Law Officers in K.M.C., K.D.A., who are enrolled as Advocates and no exception, therefore, can be taken in respect of these applicants. If it is intended as a principle not to enroll such person then it will be for the Bar Council to examine all the cases including those who are presently practising though in employment of the various Public Organization. These applications are, therefore, accepted.
6. (Sd.)
7. Chairman."
8. ' The other Resolution passed by respondent No,2 is as follows:-- "EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SINDH AND BALOCHISTAN BAR COUNCIL HELD ON 25TH OF MAY, 1975 AT 9-30 A.M.
9. ' AGENDA ITEM NO.7: ANY OTHER MATTER WHICH MAY BE BROUGHT WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE CHAIR 206.--(i) With the permission of the Chair, the report of the Committee, set-up under Resolution No,150 dated 29-9-1973 for the purpose of laying down principles with regard to right of practice of those who are employed as Law Officers in various public organizations was considered and adopted and it was resolved as follows: 'An advocate employed in an Organization exclusively as a Law Officer can represent his employer as an advocate in the Courts. A Law Officer exclusively employed as a Law Officer and working as such with an Organization can seek enrolment as an advocate provided he is otherwise qualified under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act and Rules'.
10. (Sd.)
11. Chairman."
12. ' It was in this perspective that the petitioner did not get his licence suspended as per the requirement under sections 50 and 51 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act as the petitioner was not in any manner stated to be doing any other job, business, profession, vocation, which is not concerned with the field of law in capacity of an Advocate, or Legal Advisor to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation till date.
13. ' In 1995, the petitioner had appeared before a Committee of Judges including the Hon'ble Chief Justice for the purposes of seeking certificate of fitness for enrolment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Such Committee had declared the petitioner to be fit and had accordingly issued a certificate to him dated 19-10-1995. Consequent to the receipt of certificate of fitness the petitioner applied to the respondent No,1 seeking enrollment as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. All formalities were stated to have been completed by the petitioner.
14. The respondent No,1 called the petitioner for interview vide letter dated 10th January, 1996 on 18th January, 1996 before the Enrolment Committee duly chaired by His Lordship Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial. The petitioner was accordingly interviewed by the Committee, A call letter issued by the respondent No,1 is stated not to have been received by the petitioner. However, upon examining the office copy of the Secretary of the respondent No,1, it seems that the petitioner had been asked to satisfy as per the provisions of Rule 175 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and Rules, 1976, his entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan.
15. The petitioner did receive correspondence dated 19th August, 1996 informing him that the Enrolment Committee of the respondent No,1 in its 102nd meeting considered the matter of enrolment of the petitioner and has decided as under:-- "After detailed discussion, the Council decided in principle that no person while in whole time service, or carrying out some other business, or vocation, can be enrolled as an Advocate, nor an enrolled advocate, can be permitted to join whole time service, or carry out some other business or vocation. If any Provincial Bar Council has been acting otherwise, that is not in accordance with the spirit of Rule 175 of Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, therefore, they must not enroll any person while in whole time service, or carrying out some other business, or vocation, or permit any enrolled advocate to do so. The Provincial Bar Council should scrutinize all such cases, either such advocates should be struck off the roll of the advocate, or they should leave the service/business/vocation forthwith."
16. ' Based on the aforementioned correspondence, the petitioner had placed the two Resolutions mentioned hereinabove passed by the respondent No,2 and awaits the reply as envisaged under Rule 108(d) as according to the petitioner he has been condemned unheard and upon pursuing the office of the respondent No,1 the petitioner has been informed, that the issue raised by him has been placed in the Agenda of the Pakistan Bar Council General Body Meeting, and would be decided shortly.
17. ' It has been contended before us, that the respondent No,1 has misapplied the provisions of Rules, 1975 of the Legal Practitioners Bar Councils Rules, and for that matter before passing an adverse order against the petitioner, he was not provided an opportunity of hearing, as the petitioner is fully qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate of Supreme Court of Pakistan whereas on the other hand decision in respect of the petitioner is required to be conveyed to the petitioner under Rule 108(d), so that the petitioner could avail his right of appeal which has been so provided under Rule 108(e) of the Rules.
18. ' Another aspect which has been canvassed before us is that refusal of enrolment of the respondent No,1 is in consequence of misapplication of Rule 175 and Rules 50 and 51 of the Sindh Bar Councils Rules, 1991 requiring suspension of licence if he takes any service or engages himself in any business or vocation.
19. ' Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a reported case 1993 CLC p.81 Muhammad Mazhar v. Chairman Federal Public Service Commission and 2 others and 1995 SCM R 1570 Farhat Ali Khan v.
20. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate and another.
21. ' In the above-referred judgment, we find that the Enrolment Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Manzoor Hussain Sial had counted the period of service of the petitioner Muhammad Mazhar in the Ministry of Law, Islamabad from the 14th March, 1978 to 30th April, 1981 towards his practice as an Advocate.
22. In view of the aforementioned perspective, it has to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, services rendered by an advocate in an Organization while doing the work of legal nature can be counted towards his practice as an Advocate, is a matter germane to the determination of the question of enrolment by the Enrolment Committee of the respondent No, 1 . In the light of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not in any manner engaged himself in work which is not purely of legal nature, such as appearance in subordinate Courts, High Court, tendering legal advice giving legal opinions, and therefore, while doing such work, his period of service with the Organization, in which he is engaged is a period which ought to have been counted as a period of his practice as an Advocate. We would, therefore, dispose of this petition with the above observation, and would direct that a copy of this judgment be placed before the respondent No,1 for their consideration while dealing with the question of enrolment of the petitioner as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.