1. ' S.A. RABBANI, J.---Petitioner, an Advocate of this Court, was President of Karachi Bar Msociation and in that capacity, as representative of Advocates, he filed this petition to enforce implementation of the provisions of Companies (Appointment of Legal Advisers) Act, 1974 (X of 1974).
2. ' The Act (X of 1974), in its section 3, provides that every company shall appoint at least one Legal Adviser on retainer ship to advise such company in the performance of its functions and the discharge of its duties in accordance with law, A company has been defined in the Act to mean a company formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1913 (VII of 1013), but does not include a company the paid-up capital of which is less than five lakh rupees or a company limited by guarantee or an association registered under section 26 of that Act. Section 7 of the Act (X of 1976) provides a punishment for contravention of, or failure to comply with, any provisions of the Act, which includes simple imprisonment and fine.
3. ' The grievance of the petitioner is that many companies have not made compliance with this legal requirement and have not appointed Legal Advisers from amongst the advocates as defined in the Act, and the respondents, who are under a legal obligation to enforce the provisions of this Act, have failed to discharge it.
4. ' We have heard the petitioner Mr. Muhammad Amin Lakhani and Mr, S.M. Amir Naqvi for respondent No,2. Mr. Lakhani contended that bona fide members of the Bar, who are the natural beneficiary of the Act, are not getting the benefit, and many companies have appointed some persons as Legal Adviser who are not advocates. In the petition, he had also made a prayer, for enhancement of the rate of the fee for retainer ship, which, he says, is no more necessary because it has already been done. 'Compliance with the provisions of the Act in consultation with the petitioner', is also a prayer, but it is beyond the scope of the Act. Remaining prayer includes compliance with the provisions of the Act and action under section 7 against the companies that failed to comply with the Act. Mr, Amir Naqvi appearing for respondent No,2, submits that he has no objection to grant of this prayer.
5. ' Section 7 of the Act X of 1974 provides a remedy in the situation of noncompliance with the provisions of the Act, but its subsection (2) rendered it inadequate by making the action dependent upon the discretion and will of some individual officers, which is evident in the present case where no such report has been made in a Court.
6. In these circumstances we are inclined to allow the petition. The respondents are directed to carry out a complete survey to detect the cases of noncompliance with the requirements of the Act i,e, the cases in which an advocate as defined in the Act has not been appointed as Legal Adviser, and to register cases in the competent Courts in case of violation. Report of the action taken be submitted to this Court within three months. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.