Notification dated 19-11-2001 purported to have been issued under section 23, clauses (i), (j), (k), (1), (m) and (n) of Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council Act, 1996 whereby regulations were framed introducing "5 years DVM degree program starting from academic year 2001-2002" has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for declaration that replacement of degree courses with the scheme of study of 5 years composite degree program is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The same notification has been challenged by Animal Husbandry Association (Regd.) Pakistan through its Secretary vide Writ Petition No,15845 of 2002. In view of the identity of the subject-matter both these petitions have been heard together.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council (PVMC) cannot prescribe such course of studies as may be in conflict with the existing courses and that the introduction of scheme of study of 5 years composite degree program replacing the 4 years DUNI and B.Sc. (Hons.), A.H. Programs is inconsistent with even section 9 of Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council Act, 1996. According to the learned counsel the recognized qualifications mentioned in First Schedule to the Act could not be altered without amending the said Schedule through Legislation.
The learned counsel for respondent No,3 i,e, Pakistan Veterinary Medical Council has objected to the locus standi of the petitioners in both these petitions and contends that neither of these petitioners is an aggrieved person nor have locus standi to invoke jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and that since an alternate remedy under section 25 of Act (III) of 1996 was available, which indeed had been resorted to by the Animal Husbandry Association (Regd.) Pakistan (the petitioner in W.P. No,15845 of 2002), the writ petitions should be dismissed for that reason. He has, however, argued to support the regulations notified/introduced through the impugned notification.
3. In view of the assertion as to the availability of adequate remedy reference to section 25 of the Act (III) of 1996 may be of relevance and appropriate to find out the scope and content of section 25 in the context of the controversy. It reads as follows:- "25. Commission of Inquiry.--(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Federal Government that the Council is not complying with any of the provisions of this Act, the Federal Government may refer the particulars of the complaint to a Commission of Inquiry consisting of three persons, two of whom shall be appointed by the Federal Government, one being a Judge of the High Court and one by the Council; and such Commission shall proceed to inquire in summary manner and to report to the Federal Government as to the charge of default or of improper action being found by the Commission to have been established, the Commission shall recommend the remedies, if any which are in its opinion necessary.
(2) The Federal Government may require the Council to adopt the remedies so recommended within such time as having regard to the report of the Commission, it may think fit; and if Council fails to comply with any such requirements, the Federal Government may amend the regulations of the Council, or make such provision or take such other steps as may seem necessary to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission.
(3) A Commission of Inquiry shall have power to administer oaths, to enforce the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and shall have all such other necessary powers for the purpose of any inquiry conducted by it as are exercised by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908).
The perusal of the above provision would show that any complaint about transgression of power by the Council can be made before the Federal Government. Such a complaint .Indeed was made by the Pakistan Animal Husbandry Association (Regd.) on 19-8-2002 before the Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Government of Pakistan alleging that"the notification envisages to introduce a five years DVM degree programme replacing four years DVM and B.Sc. (Hons.)
Animal Husbandry. The four years degree are well-recognized and included in First Schedule of PVMC Act, 1996. The PVMC is not empowered under any section or clause of the Act to combine the degrees already included in the First Schedule of the said Act. The PVMC is altogether biased towards B.Sc. (Hons.) Animal Husbandry degree and intends to merge this with DVM degree".
Alleging that the PVMC was trespassing the Act of Parliament and was exercising power not bestowed upon it under the Act, it was requested that "Commission of Inquiry be constituted under section 25, clause (1) of the PVMC Act, 1996 to look into the unlawful action of the Council".
The complaint so made by the Association can well be examined and enquired into by the Commission contemplated by section 25 of the Act. The matter thus appropriately falls within the scope of inquiry under section 25. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that such is not an adequate remedy for the petitioners, has not impressed me inasmuch as three- member Commission of Inquiry will comprise a Judge of High Court with two other persons to be appointed by the Federal Government. Such a high placed Commission can adequately and effectively consider the complaint of the petitioners in terms of section 25 of the Act. In view of the matter having already been taken up by the Association with the Federal Government in terms of section 25 of the Act, I am dissuaded from touching the merits of the respective contentions of the parties and embarking upon any further discussion. The petitioner in W.P. No,10591 of 2002 who himself is stated to be the member of the Council, may also either take up the matter with the Federal Government under section 25 of the Act or join the proceedings of the Commission in the complaint already made by the Pakistan Animal Husbandry Association (Regd,) Pakistan. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions need not be mentioned in view of the above order. The learned Deputy Attorney-General, has, on instructions from the .Federal Government stated that the Commission will be constituted soon, which will process and finalize the matter possibly within three months.
As a consequence of the above both these petitions are disposed of with the observation that the matter will be examined and enquired into by the Commission envisaged by section 25 of the Act and to be finalized hopefully within three months, in terms of the statement of the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan.