Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE
1988 S C M R 460
1988 S C M R 460
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB--Petitioner
versus
Ch. MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE and others--Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.896 of 1987, decided on 13th January, 1988.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 29th April 1987, in Writ Petition No.4702 of 1987).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
---Arts.185(3) & 199--Leave to appeal by Government of Punjab against interim order of High Court passed in writ petition in which crux of grievance was that respondents were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges in contravention of relevant rules and in total disregard of recommendations made by High Court--Impugned interim order directed Advocate-General to produce letter of recommendation for perusal by the Court for just decision of case--Held, Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere in interlocutory orders passed by High Court--Neither Government nor Chief Justice of High Court having any reluctance to produce the said document and Government not claiming any privilege with regard to its production before the Court--High Court probably passing impugned order in order to ascertain correct position and put an end to controversy because production of recommendations might be more conducive to maintenance of prestige and dignity of the Institution than withholding it- Advocate-General only seeking further opportunity to canvass his point of view with which plea Advocate appearing for caveators respondents fully agreeing--Petition, therefore, disposed of with observation that Advocate-General might move High Court for further opportunity to canvass his point of view before he is required to comply with the Court's order.
Khalil Ramdey, Advocate-General, Punjab and Mr. Tanvir Ahmad, Addl. A.-G., Punjab (Mr. M.M. Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court with them), instructed by Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Raza Kazim and Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocates Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th January, 1988.
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The Government of Punjab has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29th November, 1987 in Writ Petition No.4702 of 1987 filed by the respondents.
The crux of the grievance which led to the filing of the writ petition is that respondents Nos. 5 to 22 (in this petition) were appointed as Additional District and Sessions Judges in contravention of the relevant rules and total disregard of the recommendations made by the High Court.
Vide the impugned order dated 29th November, 1987 the learned Judge seized of the writ petition directed the Advocate-General Punjab to produce letter of recommendation ir. the following words:
"It appears to me that the perusal of the letter of recommendation is essential to the just decision of the case. The Advocate-General will therefore produce the recommendation letter in original or a copy thereof on 12-12-1987."
It is against this interim order that leave is sought by the petitioner.
We have heard the learned Advocate-General as well as the learned counsel for the caveators at considerable length.
In the first place this Court does not ordinarily interfere in interlocutory orders passed by the High Court. Secondly the learned Advocate-General has submitted that neither the Government nor the learned Chief Justice of Lahore High Court who has the original recommendations with him) has any reluctance whatsoever to produce the aforementioned document. He also repeatedly expressed his willingness to produce the letter in question before this Court for perusal. It is, therefore, evident that the Government does not treat it to be a secret document. Nor has it claimed any privilege with regard to its production before the Court.
The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, categorically stated (on instructions) that the appointment of respondents Nos.5 to 22 had been made strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the High Court. He vehemently urged that his only worry was that such a communication between the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Chief Executive of the Province, made by the former during the performance of his official duties has never been previously required to be produced in a Court of law and that such a precedent may encourage even the Civil Judges to requisition the record of the High Court, which would be highly detrimental to the prestige and dignity of the Institution, namely the High Court.
His second grievance was that he was not given sufficient opportunity to argue this question and make his submissions on the matter, by the learned Single Judge hearing the case.
We have no doubt that the High Court itself would be more conscious, than anyone else, of its obligation to protect and maintain the prestige, honour and dignity of the Institution. Knowing the administrative structure of the High Court and its practice in dealing with such matters, we are sure that the learned Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court can, in their wisdom and sagacity, themselves resolve the question in issue, best.
It is quite possible that, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the learned Judge hearing the matter may himself have had the same purpose in mind when he required the letter in question to be produced. He probably did so in order to ascertain the correct position and thus put an end to the controversy, because the production of the recommendations may be more conducive to the maintenance of the prestige and dignity of the Institution than withholding it.
All that the Advocate-General seeks is further opportunity to canvass his point of view.
Mr. Raza Kazim, Advocate appearing for the caveators respondents has fully agreed with this plea of the learned Advocate General.
The petition is therefore, disposed of with the observation that the learned Advocate-General Punjab, may move the learned High Court for further opportunity to canvass his point of view, before he is required to comply with the Court's order dated 29th November, 1987.
S.Q./G-59/S Order accordingly.