TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.--An enquiry was conducted by the office upon the receipt of a registered cover letter, dated 20-6-1998 written by one Mr. Jamil Akhtar of Intelligence Agency. It was pointed out therein that a fraud had been played by Mehboob Alam, X.E.N., WAPDA and Mansoor-ur- Rehman Khan Afridi, Advocate, both respondents/contemners in this case, with the allegation that the former through latter filed a Writ Petition bearing No,5600 of 1998 against his transfer order, dated 25-3-1998 which came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari (one of us).
It was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 27-3-1998.
2. Mehboob Alam respondent/contemner filed second Writ Petition hearing No,5946 of 1998 on 31- 3-1998 only after four days through same counsel Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi respondent/contemner, challenging the same transfer order. He, however, did not disclose the number of earlier writ petition. In the second writ petition a certificate at the end was given in the following words:-- "This is the second writ petition on the subject-matter as the first was withdrawn from this Hon'ble Court. Note.--Writ Petition No,4746 of 1998, may kindly be put up along with this petition." Even in the Urgent Form filed with the second writ petition Mansoorur-Rehman Khan Afridi, Advocate/contemner gave a note in the following terms:-- "Put up Writ Petition No,4746 of 1998."
3. Accordingly, the office in view of the fore mentioned noting put up second writ petition before Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum as he earlier heard Writ Petition No,4746 of 1998. He passed the following order on 1-4-1998:-- "Mr. Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi, Advocate.
Direct the respondents to appear at the limine hearing of this petition on 28-4-1998. C.M.No,1 of 1998 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
C.M.No,2 of 1998 Notice for 28-4-1998. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain suspended."
4. Subsequently after the receipt of the aforesaid registered letter and the commencement of the enquiry Mr. Afridi filed C.M.No,3 of 1998 on 8-7-1998 making a prayer for the withdrawal of the Writ Petition No,5946 of 1998. The learned Judge on 10-7-1998 passed the following order:- "Seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition which is granted and W.P. No,5946 of 1998 is dismissed as having been withdrawn." The matter after the inquiry was put up by the Additional Registrar on 5-8-1998 before Mr. Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari who too received the similar registered letter from Intelligence Agency as he dealt with the transfer matter in Writ Petition No,5600 of 1998. He directed Mr. Afridi to see him in his Chamber on 19-9-1998 so as to explain his position.
5. Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi appeared before my learned brother in Chamber and explained his position. Since the complaint of the Intelligence Agency was also being dealt with by our learned brother Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J., in view of the fact that he heard the second writ petition as such Mr Justice. Karamat Nazir Bhandari (one of us) referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate direction. Consequent thereto the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted the present Special Bench to hear this matter.
6. On 26-10-1998 after going through the entire record this Bench came to a prima facie view that a case of professional misconduct as well as contempt of Court as envisaged under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan had been made out. As such show-cause notices were issued to Mehboob Alam, XEN and Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi learned Advocate to explain why proceedings under the aforesaid provisions of law and the Constitution be not taken against them and they be not punished.
7. Mehboob Alam respondent filed reply in the Court on 3-12-1998 and Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi filed his reply on 16-12-1998. The former stated that he was not conversant with the technicalities of the filing of the Constitutional petitions. He admitted engaging Mansoor-ur- Rehman Khan Afridi in both his writ petitions i,e, W.P. No,5600 of 1998 and 5946 of 1998. He prayed for forgiveness as according to him he could not have even imagined of committing contempt of Court.
8. Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi respondent/contemner in his reply stated that in the subsequent writ petition, in view of the disturbed state of mind because of the sickness of his mother who later died, he could not see that his stenographer missed the correct number of earlier Writ Petition bearing No,5600 of 1998 which had been withdrawn by him on 27-3-1998. He has, however, maintained that in the certificate he had mentioned that it was the second writ petition on the subject. However, the number was wrongly mentioned as W.P. No,4746 of 1998.
9. A further reply was filed by him after few adjournments on 10-6-1999, which is in the following terms:- "That the answering respondent is a Senior Member of the Lahore High Court Bar Association. He has more than 18 years standing at Bar to his credit. He has also held offices of Vice-Chairman, Punjab Bar Council. All along he has held the Courts in highest esteem and always advocated that the Bar show the higher regard to the Courts. That the undersigned regrets the unintentional lapse on his part and tenders unqualified apology and expresses regrets. He expressed sincere contrite in this behalf and undertakes that such a lapse will not occur again."
Both the respondents now have prayed for forgiveness. Learned counsel appearing for Mansoor- ur-Rehman Afridi has stated that it was an unintentional omission on his part as such he be forgiven.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts of this case and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. Mr. Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi, Advocate took up the plea that he did not make any mention of earlier petition in his second Writ Petition No,5946 of 1998 as at the relevant time he was under psychological strain and failed to incorporate the correct reference number. It is to be noted that second writ petition was filed only after four days of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition. It is, thus, manifest that it was he who had filed earlier writ petition and it was he who withdrew the same without seeking permission to file fresh petition within the contemplation of Rule 1(3) of Order 23, C.P.C.
11. Reference to Rule 2 of Chapter 4-J of High Court Rules and Orders Vol. V, framed by the High Court for filing of writ petition is very apt which has provided that an application for issuance of writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and Certiorari under the Constitution shall--
(a) set out concisely in numbered paragraphs the facts upon which the applicant relies;
(b) mention the grounds upon which the Court is asked to make an order;
(c) state exactly the nature of the relief sought;
(d) be accompanied by an affidavit or affidavits in proof of the facts referred to in the application; and
(e) state whether the applicant has moved the High Court previously for the same relief and if so, with what result.
(2) The provisions of Rule 1 of Chapter 1-A, shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to applications seeking Constitution remedies.
As already stated the second writ petition in these circumstances, without seeking permission of the Court at the time of withdrawal could not have been filed. Reliance in this respect is placed upon 1979 CLC 829, PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 848, PLD 1970 SC 1, 1969 SCMR 269, 1985 CLC 2805, 1986 CLC 2425, PLD 1989 SC 246, PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 287, 1970 SCMR 141, PLD 1990 SC 596, 1991 MLD 571 and PLD 1992 Lahore 420.
12. From the above resume, we have, therefore, no option but to reach at a conclusion that he intentionally and willfully suppressed the correct number and the circumstances in which earlier writ petition was withdrawn. We feel a lot of pain in observing that this malady of filing successive writ petitions for the same cause is becoming rampant. After the finalization of controversy at the highest level, no justification was available to the respondents/contemners to reagitate the same cause in this manner. Certainty and finality of the causes enhance the dignity of the Court. This practice albeit illegal, if not checked, will lead to the erosion of judicial authority. While making these observations we are very much conscious that the Bar and Bench are two wheels of chariot involved in the dispensation of justice. Both are supplementary and complementary to each other.
Seeing from the above dimension, we regret to say that Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi did not act within the framework of ethics of profession and committed acts which clearly fall within the ambit of contempt of Court. Accordingly we find him guilty of contempt.
13. The question now for consideration is as to what penalty should be imposed upon him. The tender of apology though does not by itself purge the wrong committed by the contemner, it certainly reduces the gravity. In the case in hand Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi submitted apology at a belated stage with lame explanation. This apology cannot exonerate him nor purge the contempt.
14. Taking into consideration all these aspects we are of the view that the sentence of reprimand in the circumstances would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, taking into consideration the rule of healthy relationship between the Bench and Bar as well as his standing in this profession, we award this lesser penalty of reprimand to Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi. As regards Mehboob Alam, Executive Engineer, he being the beneficiary and active participator in this act, as such, following the rule of consistency, he too is reprimanded. This disposes of the contempt application.