SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioner who is a practising Advocate had called in question the provisions of a circular, dated 4.1.1999 of respondent No 1 issuing certain directions to Registrars and Sub-Registrars to obtain certain documents before registering a power-of-attorney. The aforesaid circular ostensibly issued with the object of minimising chances of fraud and its relevant part reads as under:- "Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that henceforth the word resides appearing in clause (a), sub- section (1) of Section 33 o the Registration Act shall mean and include the place where the 'principal and executant of a power-of-attorney 'permanently resides and such power shall only be presented for authentication before the sub-Registrar concerned having the jurisdiction.
The fact that the executant of power-of-attorney is the permanent resident of a particular place shall be proved from any one of the following documents an attested copy of which shall invariably be obtained and filed in the record namely--
(i) Domicile certificate; (ii) Permanent Residence Certificate (iii) National Identity Card; (iv) Title ' documents relating to residential property; (v)
Identity Card or certificate from the employer or the head of educationalist institution; or (vi)
Electricity, telephone or gas bill."
2. The petitioner has argued that while appropriate steps to minimise changes of fraud may be desirable in the public interest the circular in question casts unreasonable burdens on a large number of citizens who may not, for genuine reasons, be able to produce- the documents mentioned in the circular. Moreover, it is argued' that the circular in- question purports to modify the exiting law and appears to have been issued in excess of the jurisdiction vested in respondent No. 1 by law.
3. Sheikh Munir-ur-Rehman, learned A.A.-G. Appearing on Court notice very candidly conceded that he was unable to defend the legality of the impugned circular particularly in view of the law laid down by Division Bench judgment of this Court in Asad Zaheeruddin and others-v. Sub-Registrar "T" Division-I and others , (1987 CLC 786). In the aforesaid case executive directions were issued after approval of the then Martial Law Administrator requiring the Sub-Registrars not to registrar conveyance deeds in the , absence of a certificate to, the effect that capital gains tax in respect of transfer of particular property had been paid. Their Lordships held that production of such certificates as not a requirement of law and executive instructions even if approved by the Martial Law Administrator did not enjoy the protection of Article 270-A, of the Constitution. Learned A.A.-G. Nevertheless argued that since instructions had been issued for a laudable purpose in the public interest i.e. To prevent frauds the Courts may not exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to strike down the impugned circular.
4. It may be observed that Section 33' of the Registration Act deals with regisration of powers-of- attorney and clause (a) of sub -section (1) stipulates that a power-of-attorney will be executed by a Registrar of the District or a Sub-District where the principal resides. We are aware of some of judgments of superior Courts wherein it had been held that the expression "resides" does not necessarily mean "permanent Residence". In directing that the word "resides" shall only mean the place where the principal permanently resides, the respondent No. 1 has clearly arrogated to himself a power which does not vest in him. Obviously an administrative functionary cannot add to the words of a statute nor assume the jurisdiction to interpret laws, which only vests in Courts of law: Moreover the Sindh Permanent Rules, 1971 require a person to obtain a certificate for the purposes of securing employment under the Government or admission into higher/professional institute of learning. The certificate obtained under the Rules for such limited purposes cannot be treated as necessary for the purpose of Registration Act. Similarly, though domicile certificates are normally granted by District Magistrates, they are no proof of the ' fact that the holder thereof is a "permanent resident" of a particular district. On the contrary under the Citizenship Act, 1951 a person can only be a domicile of a county and not that of a particular District of areas therein. One may refer to the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Yar Muhammad v. District Magistrate, Loralai (1981 SCMR 154) (sic). Indeed a National Identity Card may 'be a proper measure for identification of a person executing a document. Nevertheless, the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees a fundamental right to any person to move or reside anywhere in the country. At the same time though the National Registration Act requires every citizen to obtain an Identity caid, but it does not contemplate that any holder of such card must get it replaced the moment he changes his address. Indeed there may be several occasions disclosed when the place of Residence shown in the identity cards may be different from the one where the bearer permanently or actually resides. There may be several persons executing power-of-attorney who may not be in possession of title documents of properties, or utility bills in their names. A self-employed person would obviously not be able to produce a certificate from an employer. In any case if a person really wishes to play a fraud, preparing a bogus certificate of employment is not at all difficult and the Registrar or Sub-Registrar can hardly have any means to verify the authenticity of such certificate.
Moreover, cases of fraud or bogus domicile 'certificates. P.R.Cs. Or National Identity Cards, crop up quite often and we cannot help taking judicial notice of such manipulations.
5. In the above circumstances, though we share the anxiety of the Government and the learned A.A.-G. That some efforts need to be made to check frauds in the above context, we are of the opinion that the impugned measures may hardly serve any useful purpose. On the contrary they are more likely to be counter-productive. Section 35 of the 'Registration Act casts a solemn obligation upon the Registering Officer to satisfy himself that the person appearing before him is genuine. He could be required to state the reasons for his satisfaction. However, the stipulation that he should obtain a copy of one of six types of documents and place on record might possibly apart form causing undue burden upon citizens enable him to shed his responsibilities of identifying the maker of the, document and enable him to act mechanically by registering a power-of-attorney after obtaining copies of one of the six documents whose own authenticity may be open to-serious doubts. We, therefore, agree with, the petitioner that tit would be far more important to take strict measures against those who are found guilty of mal-practices instead of issuing 'omnibus directives. We would at the same time add that when a power-of-attorney is fraudulently registered primarily on the basis, of identification by an Advocate the registration officer , or the concerned Authorities must invariably apprise the concerned Bar Council for taking disciplinary action against the Advocate abetting such fraud.
6. . In view, of the above, we are constrained to declare the impugned circular to have been issued without lawful authority and hold the same to be of no legal effect. The respondents, however, are free to introduce any appropriate measures for prevention of fraud within the scope of authority conferred by law or to seek amendment of the relevant law The petition is allowed in the above terms.