':1

:'i

.. ,
I

111
.•-:t_ll'lrnME COUH'!' OF'/\/,/\!) ,Jl\MMU r11u l<i\Sllflll-
--~------r--7\!1ii"f:-1.-.-~~i::--:-i1rn
1 TTirT1 c l'f(:it. ---r-------- - 11
/!
**-!c**A
I.r :
,-

sa r d (1 r s ;:1 j_ d MI l h (')ill 111;) cl ni _;:l tl I - J.

Ba:-~ h <J rat l\ h 111 ad Sh <1 i '.-: h , ,I.
Ch a u d h r v Mul1;:11nrn;irl Taj, ,J -

I rl~rJe1 a tion of Pakistan

thLough the Secretary,
~Li n i .·~ t r y o f K as h m i r !\ f f n .i r ,c.; a n d
No i- l: h e r n Tl f £ a i r s Di vi si on r

Is L;-1111;ibad.

VEF'.SU::i

I. M;iJik Muhammad Miskeen

son of Abdul Hehman.
2. lla:ji Am i r .i an ..on of Ueirnu
( F'or me i (\)•mcil.Ju1-Nor·thern 1\cea-~ C.:oui·-ci.L \.
r e s i.d e n r; of 'I'a nq i r . 'l'ehsi.J l);:i<.-<H.1 Jcinqj_1_-,
JJi.st:.rict Dia Mir.-.
~~liaikil !lbdul 1\7i7., Tlrivoc;1te,
l•l 11 7, il ff ;:11~ ab ad .
~. (;over-nment of /\::-·.ad .1ri111rn11 ;;, l<aslir1i1·,
l.h r o uq h Chief ;;ecretricy l\7,,·1cl ,;a1-1!:u ;rn.J
I I
Kashmir, Muzaffarah;ici.
'). .i e n ab 1\bdul Ras hicl '1';-1rnbi.,
l\m:i.i.- ,Jamal:-e---1-·~ I a111i, t•Ju:;,;if ta r a b au .

(,. .l e n a b Sar~clar Muil;=1111rn;1d /\hd11 I. (>.)"r'1-•;11 l:d1:111,

1~ r es i.d c n t /\1 J. ,J arnmu ~" I( ;1 :; l un ii_-
~-lu.';Jiin Conference, Mu7;1[f-<1r-ab;:icl.

1. .Je n a b Tlrnanullah Khan,

r r e s i de nt .t arnmu & l<a.shrnir Liberciti_c n 1 l·'t-0111:,
t,1uzciffarabad.
[3 • .tammu and Kashlilir Plebiscite F'roc-_\ ,
t.h r o uq h Muhammad !\bdul l<h<iJ iq 1\nr r L, i: i
i I
Advocate, Mirpur. i : !:
9. ML-. C). M. Mic, Pre.sic.lent, l !i:
i
.' II i
National Liberation L''ront, Mi.rpu1-. i 11 j

IH:.'; I'< JNDEN'~S .'!;

I ! i
11 !
11- .:
i:, II

.:
·f ''I
,, I
i
j,

i
I'
""
J 1
i!
I
.:1 !
I
I
 l\z;:i<l c;over11111ent of tile St<1lc~ or
,J;t11111111 r111cl Ka s hm i.r t h r o uq h
ch i o f Secretar~y o f 1\7..iH.J (;ovc1·n111c~n1~.

~ i!
,,
I

V 1-: I< S lJ~;

I . t-l;.1 l j k Muhammad Mi.skee11

.'; o 11 of I\ bu u I Heh ma 11 •

) . II ;.1 j i I\ Ill i r J a n so 11 o r I le i LI ll l
(Cornier CounciJ lo r No r t h e r n Areas ) ,
r · P s id e 11 l: o f 'I' a n q i ,- , 'I'(~ h : D ;i r i ri l ,
1 i i .r.. L r .i c \: I) L a M j r· .

.~;\ic1ikl1 l\bduJ l\i'.i.7., !ldvor·;1te,

r·.1•17.i'l f f a r a b ad .
I\ l<SPONDEN'I'S
.1. <:rJvet-1Hnent o f l';:1k.t.sL;ir1 tinou0:1
.'~ec::re t a r y I Ka s lun.i r I\ r f il i.r ~ ;:ip·(
Northern l\ffairs JJLvi.siull,
l s Lam ab ad .
,..v , ,Jenab Sardar Muliam111acl /\l><lu I QaV'/\'!11 l<.ha11,
I' 1· e s id e n t I\ 11 , r a mm u a 11 cl l\ ;:i.c;h m i r
I
~·luslim Conference, Mu7.riffr1rabad. 111
'11 i
(i - .t o u a b Mumt;:1z l lurts a i u l!;1thore, It!
r.·t1·a_i_1~111an Pakistan Peopl e:c; l'i'1r. t:~', I. 1· ;,

l\ za cl I<. as h rn i 1.:- , Mu z ;:i I f i1 r ;1 l) cH i . l1 1/

l ! : :
1. . r en ab Mu h i'l mm ad Sh i'1 r L r 'I' a r .i q , .,, Ii
l11·esidenl:, Liberation 1 . e"que, Mir .u r .
I' I

0. ,Jenab /\bdu.L Ras h i d 'I'u r a b i , !

I\ Ill .i r ,J C1 rn d t - e - J .S .l a m j_ , ~-1 LI r. il f f al <:\ b a cl .

9. . l<~nrilJ /\man UJ.l<ih l\l1;:u1, Presid~nl

.t ammu and Ka s hm ir 1.Lber~c:iti.011 F'r o u t.
l'lll?.a[[iit:.:ibad.

I o. , ! :1::1!!1'-l an d f{;:1.c;h111i.1. PI e bi .';<· .i. l:e i·' [G\i t, :I

r h r o uq h Muh2mn!o:d l\bdu.l. Khi1.I iq /\.;:;i)i:_L
Advocate, Mirpur.

L .l . Mr. (~. M. Mir, President,

National Liberation Front, Mirpur.

( on a pp e a J f r o rn t h e j u d g rn e n i, a n d o r u e r o f
the l l i qh Co u r t d a t ed 8 1-·1993 i11
Writ Pet i L.Lo11 l~~_G_.!:__-~~~ J. 9 9 0 ~__l_.__j_
'
I

I '· !·
FOi~ l''l::DEHl\'J.'JON OF Pl\l< I S'l'l\N oa v i Mull<Hnmad .I am Ll, , Ii
I\ t l :~ r n e Y. ·- c;e n e 1. al ' and iI 1

\0lf •.I,. l.·<i7.a.l-·P.··-1Jussain, 1

1

/l.dv0c:Flte. ~;:1 /
·I' .I ·'I
11 '

,I
:1
 Ii
. ; I: I
J \I A. I

1
'11 [ '1

, I
111:
Fern !\Zl\D ( Mr. Ghularn Mustaf<1 Mugha-l,
l iiin··
l\clvocate, a:-;sistecJ.by/') J i jl
Mr • 1 s h :E a c; u ,,~ 11 us s a .L 11 " 1 a 1 y , ·
l\c1vocate.
1

li1 •
I
I I
' .I
F ()I\ M !\ l , .I l\ M lJ l J l\ M M I\ U l~;:i:ja Mullarn111 iLl [Jani [ l\ha
~l] SI\ EE N l\ ND H l\ J I i\d v o c a te.
l\ M I. H ,J l\ N , H E: S P 0 N DEN 'I'S

1.oOH Sil.I\ 1:3DlJ L !\Z J Z Sil. Abd uI l\1:iz,

1< l<S l'UN IH:N'J'. .Ln person.

Dnte of hearing 6-fJ- l ') 9 4. .I

I
I:! 11
1·

,J UDCMENT:

Sardar Said Muhammad Khan c. J. - 1\ s

I•
i'
a bo v e e nt i t led appeals ad . .se out of t ho s inq J.e '

of t:l1cc' ll i.q h Court, we propose to d i.s po s e of the same byl

Lh i.•'; con s ol idil ted j u d qm e n l:.

'l'h es e appeals h ave been :>referr.ecJ ac)ainst

i
1 11
tile j udqme n t of the l\zad ,J arnmu and x a shmi r Hiqh Cour I ! I

·dc:1teCI 0-3-1993, whereby the writ

MEl I i. k Muhammad M i.skeen o t lie r o ,

res pond en ts, was accepted. The i:.1e t.i ': ione rs·- , .. e.spoud e n t

fi Le d a writ petition .i.n l:he High Court a l.Le q inq tha

I I

111
l:he teer L tor ies known as Northern r.s:« a.s for med pad:
,l[.i:, I
,.Jammu and Kashmir State p r i.o r to the partition of tu . 11

11 '
I i1:
1 ii I '
.subcontinent. "
However, afl:er the p a rt i t i.o n of
t. 111 :, .
I• I
'1 I I:!
11
subcontinent into independent Stah.?~-; of Pa k is t ar a r,

. I
,, I·'
 I I

•I

l u.I.i > j 11 ie year 1947, <1 li be r a t i.or. mo v e m o n t ;launc

' 11111 : I , ::.
t·l1e 1,eop I e of the Stote in c ous eq u e n c e of whi~ i'· /II I !
I

territories or the Stat" were Ii be r n t od fro I

t:l 1 (' of t t i n.f u t·l;1lJ;11-;:ij;:i. r·o11~;0cJIH~11t:ly, a~

k 11rnv11 as the S ta t e o[ I\ z C1 d ,I ;:i 111 Ill u ~nd I< as l 1111 L 1- c ;:i 111 e into

o x i r.t e nr-e . llowever, lhP adru l n is t r a t Lo n of r~or ther

;) I '"' -';ll I L of an ciy n~P.111011 t I)(' l Wf'(>l1 I.: ii C' (;ov(' 1·11111r'1l t 0

!11
l'" I~ i : ; t ;:i 11 rind the c;ove 1 11me11 I I) [ rzac.l , I ;1111111 u il 1) l I :1shmi

~t~-v'(t-c<.:t 011 20tli Ap r i ! . l')1l~J. It l1;:is Lt~c11 ;:ivr,,-,,,,d »v

p<' r l l) ;i 1· SUl)S(·r!'J(->111 Jy h' I10 II

Constitutional Acts known as t.h e /\7.2.r) .I ammu rind.

Gover·nment l\c t , 1970 ancJ the l\ z ad .l ammu ;:i 11<.l

I
l n l e r im Constitution /\ct, I 974 ( he r I.:! i n a f t c 1: ,c; Ii a ~ l

c11l led as the J.nterirn Constitution /1.:-:t) wer e

t he agreement dated 28th /\pril, 1949 came t

and, thus, the adm i.n i s t r a t i vc co n tr o l. of the

l\reas should have been given back to the

the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir hut it w as

so a nd these areas remained under the

c on t r o L of the Go v e r ume n t; o[ Pa k i s t a o i11 vi o l a t i on

I I
 I'"
) .. I

co 11 .s \: i t u 1- : 11 aI provision.s contained in t:hr~ Jnterim

C:on~:;titu\:ion /\ct, 1.974. I\: h as been t ur t ber a v e r r ed

I
.J n'
'1: I
l-·;. !1
11

'1•
111 '·: lj 1!!
I ''· 1t
t he w r it p e t i t i on t ll a t in view
I I. ·11
I I : I

, · · r
•1

I. '1 Ii 111
exnrp~c;.sion 'State of .l nmtuu and Ka nhm ir ' a''> 11 i ven I 1'

11•

s e c t: i o n 2 of the lnteri m C: o n s t .it u L .i o 11 , i\ c I: . 19 7 j,

,, 1

No i- Ll 1 e r n I\ re as are t 11 e p ;:1 1~ t of I\ :'. a cl ,J am m u ;:ind I', a sh rn · :r

I 1il1lli I
11[1 !i
S\:<1\:E~ an d , thus, 2 w rt t: aq•1inst t he Covernrne11t::; 0.F ti ti>i,
I i l,TI' i
I i11

S\:ci\:e of l\zad Jammu and l<.<1.shmir and ,the I' a k i s t a rI f

i
i J:,.
II,.
: 11.
I .
p r a v e d for in the [allowing terms: I
'
I 11
I I
I

" (a) to order respondent N·J.L

what au t ho r i t y of I a-v it
t ho t e r r Lt o ri.c s of
named as Northern l\r<?as

authority o[ law does j_ t

those territories;

(b) to direct r e s po ud e n t [\Jo"/. t~o

the a d rn i.n is t: ration of the

State and
ju c1icia1 m a cl 1 in er y

(c) to a r r a nq e r e p r e s e nt o t i.o n of t.b e

of the Northern l\reas in the

and Ka s hrn i, r Leq:Lsl-::ilive T\ssc~mbl y
Azad .J ammu and Kashmir- Council;

(d) to set up a Bench of the Ili q h Court and

Supreme Co u r l; in the l\orthern l\reas:

( e) to take a LL other :.; teps and actions

which are necessary for the purpose of
1~·~1
-, enjoyment of the c:Jn-stitution;;il- rig 1.:

of t Ii e S t a t e _ sub :i e r: t ;; of the f..J or th ' :j ;

- . '11
Are as of the S t ate ; all d I iJ, i' ,
I I
1,

1.
1 1li ,
1,,
,.. I I
::
I

, i .·I!
I I
f, 11
''i it
I

1: Ii ,II
 Ii . Ii 'TI
:I . ' j : ! : '. ~ 1.j :I
i : j' I ~
11
i 111

I i '
6 : I

I f" ) any other relief that

Court may cleem fit and
be granted. 11

The High Court accepted the writ 'I

v .id e impugned judgment and issued wr i t in the

terms:-

II
We accordingly accept the
direct:

( i) (a) the l\zad (1overnmer.t to

assume the it ·1
If ,I
of the Northern Ar•-'!as and
it with the adrni.n i sc r a t Lon of
Jamrnu and k astirn i r :

( b) the Government of fl 'iki st a n r o p r o v ide

an c:i d e q u ;1 I: e a s s L .s t, an c e a 11 d I a r : i 1i t y
to tile l\1'.<1d Government Ln ;1l:t·ain-
m0nt of the said ob_jective.

(ii) the residents (State Subjects) o[ the

Nor.theni l\n~as shall rnj o v the benefit
of Li1e tund ame n t a L r igl·1 ts

the !\ct, L 9 71!. They sin lI

r e p r e s e n t.n t i.o n i11:

( i) the Gover.nment;
(ii) the Assembly;
(iii) the Council;
(iv) the Civil Se r v.i c e s : and
(v) o t he r national .l n s t Lt u Li.o ns .
in due course of law.

(iii) Azad Government shall take steps to

establish adm i.n i s t r e t Lv c and juO.icial
set up in the Northern Areas within tGe
f r arn e w o r k of the Ln t e c i.n: Constitution j

I
J\c t • II

"
 i mpuq n ed :juclq111c~nt or t lw l l i.n h c.ou r

F e d (~ r ;1 t .l. () 11 (, r I' a k .i. ,c; I. ;1 Ji , ·/ l<1 I I n1111 •-•.·;

1'"•.-..1 ........ .._

() 11 t·l1e qr o und t.h a L the lli.ql1 1....-VUL '-

1v<·:1'·: .i1n.U~ed l:o tile t.e r r i.Lo r v kn o wn a s f\:<.ild .l ammu and

P;:ik is t an couJ.d not Lie is:,.;uecl becr:rnse .i 1 w:1s 1101:. ;1rnenabllil i

.' I
1
t:c1 U1e :juciscl.i.ction of l\7ilcl .l amm u ;:ind l<~i.c;l1111i r fli h

,.,,," I . It has be o u l u r t hc i ,.,, n le nch·I i. n m o ruo : <>nd um L 1!1'

a p p e a l. that the points c a n v as s e d '>v the reslH)ndent~

~! I' I Ii.
' I I Ii
Ii er e i n t, a re of po 1i t i c <1 .L n <1 t u re and as s l1 c Ii we r e ' n., 1.1
t I
1•
I I I ;.
I I 1·1111

q r- rm a n e t:o tlJe wri L _juri.•:;cli.ct.·ion or the [liql1 Court. In

i\
p;11~;·1 r) of llJe m e rno r a nct uru ol- the w;:j_t.: p€-~1.i.tio11 it ,. ,lli
I
1
l!I) l·I
I ljlii~
I '/ii I 111•1' 1 : I .
;1ve1·Te<J that the <1<'iii1i1Ji.<~tr·;1tive controJ o[ l~he'.:artE!as1 I 11
I I' 11 tll I : ·1 'I :
,1 : I !lt1 I !, . !1 Ii ii
1..,i;1.s handed over to t·l1c <:ov(-~rnrnen. or f';1id.!·;i·~ar~! a~1;;! 1 a 11;, 1. 1
, 11111 :!
I .: I
.II[.:; i:I ·, I·
• :I ~
11
. I '. I
111

n"sult or: a n a qr e e me n t cl a t e d /.f3.-4-1.'.)4S but i t: I t~eased:

I 11 II I
to;;i
1111
; ·'
:
:1
1' Ii
I
I II•
1,
I
I .'I!1 !,;·11d
iI II
ex ist af t er the p r omu lq a Li o n or t h« Jqt:e1·irn c:o11st:~Lflu'~l·~ or,lijil'.(!,ll!!'[l :I
..
' I I I ·I ~ I! I '.
T1c·1·, 1974. lt has been :-;l.iil:E'd in l'.:-1ri"\ 9 of t 11(' \vri.tt.e ~I
1. il ~I I
I'I 1'
11llP. I '
I' ~1 ; I 1 ' I

I·
I !I· •I
. I';
'1

. I ,
I
II
 Federal: Lon I ,
r i. I cd on (J [
I
I·
'

Lll;1L- ;1\.l:houqil the Nort:hern /\rei'ls clo not [01111 pa r l;

t:l1r:> to rr iLo rLe s of P<1k.i.:=;t;111 ilS defined i.11 l\i.Lir·ip

t·he \·on.c;titulion of Pal<.-i_.c;t;=rn yet it dicJ not .i uip l v tha

I\ i'. a cl , J am ru 1 1 ;:i 11 cl I< ;1 ::; l 1 ru .i r as.

i

t!P I' i 11~~c1 uud e r .section ? of t he I nt (? r :i.111 < · o 11 ;·; t. i tut i o

I
I

/\cl:, 1974.

w rit l)eti.tion o nd , l.lJus, it: wa s Ln c omj.et en t .. it 111iiy be

o bs e r ved +h a t the Uove1:n111ent of Pakistan did 110\.: deny

t he nv e r me n t made i11 the w r Lt petition t.h a t: befoJe

I I,I,
' 1'
pa r t Lt i.o n of subcontinent, the Northern l\i:e;J:; we r e pal t
. 11 :I I !.

'I Ii
·"
If I !

I
I I I
I
I Ii

. !1 I Ii
 I I

/ l
of th r-? .c; t at P n I: Jam mu a 11 d Ka : _:; I un I r .

The President. of l\J I. .I amrnu iir-.'.] !<.;1sl1111i.1·

Co n Le re n ce , in his written statement J

a.rrn i t t ed

tile w r i.L pet Lt Lou wherein it wos <1' Leqecl

I.
1l
ad111i11 i.strative control of the Northern Ar e a s I

:i.11 tl i e con t r o I of the Covernrne11t of

pu rs u a n c e of agreement datecJ 28-4--19L9; jt !1;.1.c;

al s o ~;t:;:ited in para 4 or tile wr i t. ten s t a t eme n t

0LtP1 tile enforcement of l\znd •. Jamrnu and 1<;:1.shm:i..1~ C:overn-

ment /\ct, 1970 and the Lnt e r i m Con s tt Lu t i.o n /\cl:, L974,

the ::-i < 1111.i n is tr at iv e con t r o J o ve r t Ii e N c. :: the tu l\ ,- r: ;1 :; v es ts

in 1\7.clci .i ammu and Kashmir Cover.nrneut 2•1d, as such, the

administration of the said areas should have been ,

h a nd e d over to the l\zad .Larnrnu and Kashmir c;overnment

I 1

becau.o.e the agreement d a tecl '11-1-1919 came t0 an end al [

I
a r es u .Lt of the promulgation of t h e s :-i i d Co n s t; it u tional

TIC ts. I
I I

'.1.'he Government or l\zad .J ,:rn1mu and l~ashmir: I I

: I I i I
! I i I·
ulgri '
J

fi.Lecl separate objections/written stat ~ment ill the 111

I ; I! I

Court wh e r e i n it oha.s be en s tat ed that Northern 1\r~a I

I ' f
i

i ,1 I I

I
 l o

are h is t o r i c a Ll y a part of the Azad l arnrnu and

Stal:P arid the administration of the said

be i uq run by the Gover nrnen t o[ Pakistan in pu L- .'> u an ce

,I ,,

LJakistan !
aqreeme11 t entered be twe e n t he Government of:

a nd /\zacl .l arurnu ancl l<.u.shrnir c;overnment 011 /fl--4--1949.

However, the impugned judgment of the lliq h Court has

been challenged by the Cove1:11rnent of 1\z"ld ,J arnmu and I

,1, I
11 I , j I
l\asl1111ir by filing appeaJ to this Co1Ht on the grou1d 1J 1 111 _
1

11',JI ;i It 11

that t he ll i q h Cour-t had no j u r is d i.ct i on ill the matt~ 't 1 :1111 !

I 'Ii
bec;:iuse the parties we r e not ame n a b Lo to the ju r i. sdic'- 'I, I j ,

tiun of the Azad Jamrnu and IC1slirnir Hi'._.Jh Co ur t: -

i,
I
1\ preliminary objection h<ts been r;i i seq I

I -I
Ra j a Muhammad Hanif Khan, 1\cJvocate for Muharn111<:1d

and ot h e rs , responden t.s, t.h a t the appeal filed

be c a us e that was not p r o pe r Ly instituted.

th.e learned counsel the petition for leave

filed by Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Ad v o c a t e , on

federation of Pakistan was not compe~ent as he

authorised to do so by Law and Justice

Covei:nrnent of Pakistan, as e n v i s aq s. J u rid e r Hu Le

 IJ

\V~i
Isu s in e ss fr a uie d under the Co nst i t utLou of p-:-~l. ~il: an ;
r· an
·
11,
I
·1111
I :,
11
! I 11: 1
~ I
lh ci I: the power of attorney in f avou r of Cl\ !r::. ~11\
,n'
!

1:11 ,;.
I' ' I
11 ']1; :: ; ;
Fri7.til --e-Hussain, on the basis of •vhicl, t h e pe t. i t.Lo n fo ' · 1•

I11· .'' I i'I

I
.le a v e to appeal was filed in this Co1.1 t~ t , }HHl si q n ed b 'r

/\linff'(I Sadiq, the then SE~cr~cl;c1ry lo t'.12 Kas hmir !\f:fair,, I,:
l, i j
I ',,:
'11 !II ' 'I
a 11 d Northern Affairs Div .i s i.o n , was v i o 1 a ti v e of 1
1 f 1 [I , 1 1

be c au s e he was not competent to s iqu the powe11

j 1] l !' •
1\i
:.·.·I

111
a t t o r ne y in view Of l.h e p ro v.i.s Lo n s C:OU ta i.n od l
. n Ii Jlhll.,1i1!·,:,.:1·.:1 1:·1.·..

re l e v a n L Rules of' Bus in exs . It mcy be .sl·oted ,I ~tl,l :,1 11·i:

1 1

. i1~~w1: . , ,: l
Il !
,1 ~

;ic:c()nling to SchecluLe LJ to the H.n Les of 11 11f:)[[ll

1 i~ll[li.'.i i I: '. jlil

'!Ji 'l ~ ! ! ~ I ii r : I
1111•IP1· serial No.7?, I tern 7 J_,eg;:1i. p r oc e ed.l 1~li:1:11·!~i:·i· !~ F
I' I ! 1· ~I; ' ' '! I I ~
! I
I
I ~1 '~
I .iti q a t i.o n concerninq tile 1:·eder;:1l 1.'lvernrnenl.
!
/'!}\i !)! 1;~11111,1

sub .J cct of 1,aw and .J u s L ice IJ i vision . l)u rI 1><1 I he

:

'i;l~~~1; !:Ii !
lj ·I I) '~' ~

1,~, 1i
I .

of a r q urne n ts Ch. Faz;:iJ-e --·llu.c;:;;d_n, l11e !.ear11ecl ('ut1w-;0~.J, ~~~ 11 ! I

11

feclr~1'3l:ion of Paki.qtan, 1·1c·1.'.·', con t e- nd ed,~ t h a l; he

0
VJil.c.' ldu1111ll 1 111
I lt[I
li,·!1:1. j I
t
·

1:
ilJ.lf>Oi.nted to act on be h a Lf o! Fed e r a t .i on oI I ' ;:i, k i ~: t a n b
.
1·11 r I
11,
r · '1
r

,I
!

t h e l.aw and .Ju s t i c e Division and, the.<;, the 111 cl im i n a r

objP(··t-ion raised by l~aj<'l Muhammad llanif JZl\;:111, the

.Learned counsel for the respondents, has no s ub s tance.

I

11
Ile was directed to place on record the re 1Rv ant copie I I:

of docurnen ts showing that il e was au I ho r Ls e d !Jy the Ji: I

!I
j
1

i
i
I
1]
I
1
l I 'I
}:,1
!

11;

'I )ti i ' '

I I !
I , ! i
,Ii'
I.
l
 !!
, I u.r:; l- j r·p liivisiou

of in tl)p

on record (_' 0 p :L (' s o[

,
I: h cit l tl 1: "c I: \11; l :-; ;:1ppoi11 t:e<! t l 1 (' and
'
ii
,I

l)ivi:c;ion to <'l r: I 1)11 I ·erk~

1· ;:i t :i on of

l'n I: i :~ l: ;:111 in tile :i_nsliltJl: fees by

r 0 I ('11;111 L J e Lt C' ·- (I ;-1 IJ'' I r·, I 11 T1pri.l,

I

I u 'l \'.', - .i. l t: I? 11 by I: I) o ;111 r I .iw:;t j_, e ll i I/ i.i: i ()I) I_ o the

1:
I
(11 i ll i c: I I Y o I_ I\ rl .c; \ 111\ i_ I 1\ I I ;1 i 1 •.; .--Jo1.-1-J101·11 i\ 1· r airs ,

ll j \' i :: i l)ll .<;J1ow:=. .i.11

i\tl\"(\(';1[-e, W(1S duly ;q)JlOi.111.C'd il<IVOC(·I. 011 1('•'('1•1 l)y I..aw

;11 ) " ' I I l .•.; I. i (.' P. I ) .i v i _r.; .i ()I l •

Under ru J e 7 or !Zu I es o f Husine.ss, I<))_) read

w _;_ l 11 s r: I JG d u Le J_ v, t ll e LL:"; t; () f 0 [ I ice I_"·"' \~'I 1 ()

JI
are .,
1· 1 I~ .
;n it- Ii o 1· i s e cJ l: o rn a k e <1 1 H I e x (~ c u t: P t he o ,_. d r. _1_: : : ; 111 rl o t h et I 'I,

i ns t r ume n t a in the u.uuc or l'reoi.doi:t h"" heen qiveJ

- I

1:01- the sake of co11venif-;11ce, l:he r e l.e v an t; pa r t of thl I

.I
·1
1.
.Sc:lle(lu.Le is reproduced il-'3 u ud e r : - 'I

'r
I
I
(I
r_, i st of o [ f ice r s au t I 1 --:> r i s e d to 111 <'1 ke I'

e xec u t e o 1: d e r s ;1 n cl o t he r i ns tt_ u 111 e n t: .s in

name of l:\ 1 e P r es L den I: :
I
I I

I I
,c; e c: r e t ;] 1· y , Spe\..'.i.1 I .Sec1~el:~1.-y, l\cl:ing I
11 I
f ,I'
II'
,,1 I
Secrel:ar.·y, Sec re1tary ,·.
l\,]ui l
I
t,
1:1011 <'1 II'
II I ,!
!'
11'

! Irr
, I

·! i
I I
1!
 i I
.to i n t Sec1~etary or i)r~put:y

the Gove rnm e nt of

Cabinet: or Section Offic~r or an
who one

ex=o f fi c i.o , or nt1 Officer on

Duty au th o r is ecl by
c o nr.e r u r-d c ':

.ll; is evident f r orn U1e perusal or the ;:-ibove 1

mentioued provision that Section CH f Lc e r , who

.siq11erl r he letter da t ed '.)th 1\p:·iJ, 1993,

a bo v o , .is aIs o authorised l:o a u t.h e n t i.c a t e an orde r

' I
i 11.s t: r ume n t etc. However, it is also 9e ct in e 11 l I. o po1n

I
I
out t.h a t it has n owh e re been en vi .s aqe d in the :3chedul
I I
i
I
I
t ha t authentication o[ il n order COLI J.d be rn a d o on.Ly ! I
!
I
tile Seccetary or Section O[fice1~ etc. to the

t:o which the business .is concerned. l\1thoLiqh

.
I
I
e x p r e s s i.o n 'or an Officer on Special Duty authorise
I
,;1

t he IJi vis ion concerned' a pp e a rs tow a uJ.s the end

f1 b o v e -- me n t ion e d p r o v i s i on o f' the Sch e rJ u J e

said expression appears a ft e r the "c ornm a' and

01:',
1
words 'Division concerned' de; not

e a r Li.e r part of the expressions c ont a i.n i.nq

Secr:·etar~y, Section Uf[Lcer etc. This .i rnpl J.ea

COllCPn1ed officers need no l 11ece.ssar.-iJy be lo u.j

iii !
111 !
I I
I
' I
 I I

l)i vi = io n w i th which 'I

'I 11
the p l a i.n c on s t r uct Lou of Sc·l1eduJ.e
Iv i 1[

to U1e Ru l o s or. L\usi.ne:;;.s, .i l: c ann o t be s ai d Lh a t; ordi ;j.j i I

.i s s u ccl by the l'edera I c;ovN'""""t s.h o u ld be i , .1

a u t h e n c i c a t ed only by t. h o competent o ff i.c-o r O .L1

cl 111
t e! II i.·1

cnn•·erned Division 011d lint by on o Lf i c e r o r eJl'J·I ! :Ii I

s I" t uc; o[ other Div ic; i o n , es pee io l J y so wh e n the I J~~!: 111
'/'

;"··1 l;1i11.·~ to mo r e th a n one n iv l s Lo n s a~ .<-;li_1ll1!C'lle<i11 1unde

1111 d lll!IJ. 1 t I~

1
!
I·;
I I

': ::111 .': 11 111111 i I '1

""''·' ll -r the Rules of lltll•l11e.•1.s. lleslde.<1, tl1.e·~dl~s' rir!,·J Ill l

o I h et I' r o v is ion i" t ho " 1 ,"
0
s" id 1'" I e .s o[ B~j·Mti ti~, , , : : :
"'"''; "'·' it o b J Lq a i o r v thal t.h e """"'lli:J•·'>l [nll
I IIi: ! IV~·I~1: ! ! ~l'i I
I; ! 1: 1111 :I 1

"' o]c' 1.s to be made on I y "'' l ho 0 r [ "'C' 0 I I he , , I. r ~f 11911 ,i 'I I I

I lj ' 1II
t·c111c·r>1 ned , llowever·, i r i. t ;1,<;;.;u111e(I l lJ;1f: ti~:

I
and o thee r1 r· r .i (, r> i. .'; e nurue r a l:e(l ill I I P 111

r I
,'-~r·l\P<i11ie IV to t ho Hul(-~.c; <>f llu::;i1H~:;;,.; 111c;111.1: ::r,,·i:etary

COI; r_:C i.' 11 Cd , ':!OU.LO anv di [ f e r e n ca in the

,I I
I
I n s t an t case because the Te t t er d a r ed 5th Ap r i I : 19 3

wller.eby Ch.

signed by the Section O[[ic:eL of i .aw ;·111d .iu s t L e! 1

111:
D i v i sri o n . Only 'the ' v aka L ri t: 11 ;1111 ri ' va s signed IJy l\hm d
I

Sacliq, tile Secretary or the I< as I .m L 1·

.~
 - ./'~:-
:11
:
,j
I
No i r h e r n Affairs fiiv.i.:c:io11. ll: has ai1~e<.lc..1y

lj,
rt
;:ind Northern Af f a i r s u.i v i s t.o n , u nd e. l·11e fl

. ,. I l: l: e ,. clri l:Gd S- '1-· I'.'') 3,

1 ·' Pvident 0.

\•,' :i:; rip1>oi ·1 ted r·,i1111::r' 1

I Cl\'.' (l nrl ' I 1 J .< ~ l i r " r> I \ i 'v' i 3 i on

;1\· I '10. i.ns t an c e of l<a:>llm.i.1· i\rr;:iir.s rinc..l 1J01·1·1ie111 •lffairs

I ' i 1 · i :~ i. o 11 w ho s e Sec r t Cl 1 • Y n I L ho ti.me. t1 , ..

I
I
l: t o 1 n P y I avou I
! ~ j , J ! ! (~ ~ I 1·11e pnwe 1· oJ <1 i rr i r:
ell! [1, 111

1:(1;.·;i I -c.~ -Itu s s a i n . Hri_ia Mul1;1111111;1rl l la n i.J' Kh a n , Lhr: • 1 earnb

I 1 1111

co uus e J. for the r e s pond c n t's , did not .spec i. [ i ca 11 I j ,!

It
111011 I io n i.n the c on c i s e s l:ri tcmen t as t c who 1·1as crJmpeten1 I

l_n :;u.1n tile "v a k a La t.u am.i ' Oil ba ha l I O[ 1-'cr]p1;1[i.on 0

I
111 , i

Pokiotan. However, during the c our s c of a r q unre n ts. I;~ I /

con tended that it s h ou Ld Ii rive been siqnecJ by <111y of,

11 I

competent off ice rs of [,riw and Justicf: Division

by t!Je Secretary of Krishmit- affairs 2nd Northern

ni v is i o n as has be e n done .i n the .in s Lant case ,

:Lt is assumed for the s a ko of a r q v rue n L that

 .c.111.liccl: of litigation lwtvJet-~n l,.edra1 c.o v e rn mo n ' .uid a

o I I 1 r' 1 U i. v L .s i o n be L o n q e d to J, Cl w ci nd , I u ,c; ti r: e Jl i v i, s i o n ,
i

i.11 ':'r:u.!.~!:·i.t:y
1 wh i r+. I.'.> n o l: J.;1!;11 to tile ilppc<1l fil.ed

1,,!)011 t.h e authority 01- c·ti. l,.<17ill-·(:;!·-llus:;;:ij_n, 1\rlvoc:;_ite,

f'i . 1<' :-:ippe<11 is not ch n l Lo uq e d by t.h e l'edr>r;it·i.on

Haja Muh;:1mrn;Hl !Ian.LC Kli;;.111, the l e a r u ecl

l~ulc~ 31\ of Manual k n o wn ;.1.r; !l:1;-1d .1a111111u '11HI

ne p a r t me nt Manual of J.904 wh i.r-h v.1;:.11:_;

~ ,1
1. I'

11 l'. c~ .s .i. d e t1 t of /\Z ad 1.l Fl n11 n LI C-Hl cl I< i'1 sh rn i r i. I\

II

p ()Ive r s ves t ed i n h i rn u 11 d o t · .':; e c t i o 11 ') B o[ !.: h -

Cu11.'~tit:ution ./\ct, .1974. Tile a f o r e s a i.d M0nuaJ

tile provisions c o r r e s po nd inq to the p r o v isi.o ns

in t.h e Rules of Bus i.n e a s of Pakistan, r e f e r r ed l:o1

arid , thus, it is not rie c ess a r v to rn a k e F1

an;:ily:3isof the two sets or. Ru l e a , !I reference rn av l>e ma

to the following au t lio ri ti.os in sn~ port: or tile view

-~
I

- I

: IL;
I
I
1.i
! i

111 1 1
il1
11,
'1
,,'111 ii
 _./
l:liilt even I.f it .is h e Ld that /\lrnlilc1 Su Ji11 1 ,,1110 was
I '
I j
of !\ [ f <1 .i 1~ s a n C.: :l

·j
ni v i sio n at the relevant t i.me was not
I .
l:ilP 'v;:1kalatn;ima', that I
11
I

ol the a p p e a L :-· 11

.I
··i 1'
In Muhammad Sarw<Jr v. Abdu' (3h<11d
1 I •

1
I I ~ ;,'
I ,
l)<I(,), l:llP. "v a k aLa Lu am a ' w;1r> n o l; siqned by l11c

it 11;1.•; held t h a t; t.h r- p11rpo·;r• o l. p1-ovir-d.011 I I

I
. , ..
I
I J I , r ul e . l •0
I

·1
''
!11(' l'<.)SS.i.bi.Lity of 1:0111 u s i.o u , f 1~<11.td or o x pl oi I.a t. I 1'·', I l:!II

~I
~ ,: j
I
I ,;:.~I?' t' I

11'.
,1

'I' h ll ."· . i I c:i .1. '' w ye 1~ il c · t .i n q o 11 t ll e .i tl st .1. u m e 11 t () f hi. i

I

I ·'
'I
i .
cl.i.('11t: ti.Le s an appe;:il, l11(~ a bs r- n c e or in.
1·

i'ltt\.1101.i.t:y
! ,'

wr i 1i11q would not r e nd er t.h e i.ns t ltu ti.o n of tile appe a I

il :·; i Il V il .I i (J .

Jn

( I 9 8) c LC _L 2 75 ) I it was opined that tile question

whether the suit was validly Lr.s t i t u t ecl .I

effectively challenged onJ.y by the principal.

p r i.n c i.pa L in sp,ite of objection t.-iken conlinued to

I

I I

recognise the authority or: l:li e aqent to instLtute th~

1'1'1 t!.J,

u
i' .
,r
I
11

II
1.
I
•

1!1" I
I i
I
Ii li 11
: I i! I '!
11'
I '\, I I
 !1
11
I IJ

!
! i

1
Ir
l

I '

I
, \ti 1
I !
, I
:I
li '

inst. i 1_ 11t eel.

I i
' 1·'

I I
I

and liP li~1d ;ir-:\:ed on tile lel:ter~:i w riLt.e n bv tile c;overr11nent

i11.<:t·c;HI cit ci power of a tLo r n e v , flt'Oper.ly execuLcrl. I

I'
·11·
·I· Iii
.Ln Haghunath Devi v, /\dminisLr_ator.:..i__l~r:i:nr-1gar i I _I

Muni.:_:_:~:.rcilit):'_. (!\:IH 1967. ,Jc\ r< O:l), it was heJc.l th a t the

I.
pr n v i, ·'' ions con ta in e d in ru le 1 ,
1 o r d er l J .L , ;1 1: e cl i. r e c tor y
:J!
:l
'
i '
I:.
Ln na r u r e anc.l if a pleader ma ke s nil applic;:-1Li.011 with
I 1;

t: ll P ( · r> 11.s en t: of the p i"1 r l: y r11 id s u b ,c; e q u en l: I y Cj .Les a

f
1·
I
::1
! : I
II
I
i
11

I :: I :I I
i n v al i d at e the ]iii
not I
I
forma.L 'vakalatnama' that will ' 11
I 1
I
; I
i1 !
11
p r e s e n t a t i on of the appl i.c a t i.on under. orue r 9, rule 3.
111
Ii I

Besides, in cas e d~·:ided by this Court: an,

 the s uLt; on

n am a ' can be

that the said ;v:I: s t.aud s i:-0UI ie<l l,v the

a p p e I 1 a n l; w i t Ii .i 11 I h r' me i1 n i 11 r J ::; (JJ .·; (' ' · I i ( ) 1 J 196
of the Co1lt:i,;1c1- /\r'l:, ;:1;-; \1- r ,s bee11 1·r11 l:ended
on beha.if of TiiPI('

quarrel wit: 11 llH: p rot JOS i t: 1011 l.11 ;1 l under

section JYG or l:l1e Co u t ra cL !'wt:, .1 1·1111tract

which b00.ll e11 t E~ r:- ed into by

() f' o l:he 1: wit.h o u L ' .
l I l. ::)

au tho r i t y can be 1: at: i [ .i. ed by the pr L11cipa11

'
.... '1

Jl has aLr e ad y .st:at:ecl j n

the I

j_ I 1 .•; \_ ;111 I: c:cise of Paki.s t a n 0\·111.'i Ch. I

ilS
1·;17,:1! -e--llu~;.·~ai11/its co u n a c ! . So t:hc p rin ci p l o o n u n ci a t ed, I

111
:!! I

l'h~: :,: ,
"1.

in the aforesaid authorities is fu Ll v appl i c ablo to

I
I ' II
.,

I
c.1.•;r' Jn hand , Con:c;eque11 l Iv, t he pee· .i mi.n a r v oh JPCtf on! ·I I
1 I!. : 1

t:h;1t: a ppe a I was not p r ope rl v Ln s ti t u t ecl be c a us e ch.i 1

1

f' a' a I e Hussain was not Le q a 11 y competent to a~!t ii:

1
hc\1;1 \ f o[ Fede1·at1on' of P a ki a t a n :ts
' h e r e bv r.·epel I_ ElI ,''.: I ·. ;.!., 1 11

l 'Ii'I I

J 1~
I
'I I
I
The learned counse.L for the pet.Ll1i · - '
i I'

cj,j1~U~.,
i

re.,pondents, Ra j a Muhammad l lan i f Khan, has

l:hat l\ttorney-C~eneraJ or PrikLd:an, Qa:?:i Muliamrnc1d ,Ja

Iii ~l 'l
!'I·~]jllf, 1

I ~~I
11
I I I ~-
I
cannot: r e pr e s e n t the F'e d e r a t Lo n of Pal:istan be c au s el hl! l. I

:11
i .s 110!: enroJled as an ridvoc;:1te of tlH: Sup1·e111e co u r t off

1\ z ;:1r'I ,_-, il mm u and Tile ] ei'l rned co1_111.':e I

m a i n t a i ne d that under· f\1·t-ir·lc IOU o t; tlic Co11'.:t-it:ution

 ·'1 •
! 11

o[ l';iki.stan, (1973), the 1\ttor11ey-Ce11erc1J han r i.qh t to

in al .L the Courts or: Paki.sta1• but there is no 11; ..

. I

It
I
p r o vis ion in the Jn t e r i.m c:ons ti tti Lion 1\c t , 1974
1;11

I .11 11 ·i
e11ti.1-1 ing him to plead or ac t on behalf of the i·'edera 11 1

tio n o f Pakistan without f .i L- ·'' l comp 1 yin y w i th t I 1 <~

I I. ~
1l. u[le
I
1. '!;, ·1
I
as 1\zad J arnrnu and l<.ashrn ir Supreme Court Ru L s I',
.•
I I I ,I
I
I
I

l 9 7 fl ( here in a f t e r sh a L J be r: c.1 11. e d ~s t he sup r e rn e

l~11lc'·:l. ll. m;:iy be s t a t er l t hn t 1111de1: Oeder: IV,

tile ::1_1pre111e Court Hu I e s , an ad v o c a t:e c;:i11 plead

I

i_~ enroJ led as s uc.b a .,,- 1 ir o v ided under

s .i 111 i I '1 r I y u n de r Ord e r~ I V , r: u 1 e 1 2 au ~1dvocrite

hr o n r ol led as an adv o c n t.o on r oco r o for. ~1c:ting

p l e a-tiuo 011 behalf o[ his cl ie n t . llowo v e r . t he

1\tl(1r11ey-Ueneral made s ubm i s s i o n s on bE~lJ;1 Ir oI the 1111 '1·

I

I
l·'cdc1.;ll:io11 of Pa k Ls t an w it h o ur pe rrni s sj ou . /\ t-: the

1\\·t:o111ey-(ienerr.ii appr.au~d Lo •?,.....,,

I, - ..
I r e-r v ,_.. und~: r:

.i rup r es s io n that he couJd p I e ad before this CoUI:-t as an

I I
l\ t t or n e y=Ce ne r a L wirh0ut first n a v i nq oeen e n r o Ll e d asl, I • 11 j 1

11 1.,' 'Ii l
an Llclvocate, we permitted hI m t.o address ar c umen ts iH 1
1111

J1·1 Ii l,1.
r e La x a t i.o n of the re.Levant r u Le s in e xe r c i s e of powers I !i i ,
w Ii i ch v es t i n this' Cou r t under r ul e l oE or de r x I, 1 I I of

the Supreme Court Rules.

,.
 Jt may be stated t h a i: thE-

was i1 I so authorised by the I .aw a rid ,Justice

!

r ak i s t an vide letter dated '.itli ,\pr.:-iJ 1993 lo

i.

rin.111111f.>nt.s in this Courl _i_11 t h> c as e . l\e.c;ides, u

Or<lPl IV, r uI e 19, a f or ma l po~1er of clttotriey

l'P'\'1i1ec.l to be filed in this c our t be r. au s e ll-=?

l'riki::liln. Mor:eover, .i s c:J1. \.';i7a -e-llu:~.<:;Li_n, /\rl"r_write on

t hr> 1·~cieration of P k.is t an . it woulcl h a r d.l v 111;1lv~ any

rJi.fln1ence if the
Ir.urned

l.c he t:1<.t o f ;111 '/\111icus 1

I
I ,
cu : i .i c ' i1tHJ not on bell a If ol t.h e Fede1a1_ i.011 oI l'ril: is tan.
I'
''
Th11s. the contention or tile learned counse I ro L the

p e ti t1-oners-resµonde1:ts t h a t; t he arguments arl v a u c e d by

Attorney-General s h o c Ld lie treated as al I

. I 1 I
r e p r e s e n ta ti ve of Federation of Pakistan but a
I
arn i c u s cur ii'.le is not Le u ab l.e and i.s h e r e by r e pe l .l e d •

J.t has been con t e nc l e d on beh<iJ[

nppellants that the lligh Co u r t hss not applied i

to tile nature of the writ .t n view of the relief

 I

I I

11· h as been submilt:ed ih a t; tlJC~r-e must he " Jegal

1· i qll I~ ve.s t:ecl in

r I
· 1

Io r s h ows that l: he r (' ,c; pond e 11 t.c·~ ss o U<J Ii I: w r it of' 1

i d

It has '11.sn been

111 I(' l i 111 < .o ns l; i, t.u ti.on -tv: t.:, I 'l "/ti shov,1:; I: h ;i L \•I I'. it

' ! 1.1') 1-1 ;1 1: r a 1 i l: o is on I. y .L .~; .'; u o ( I i. I' Lh nt

was
p e r ,:; on / ho 1 d i 11 g a pub I i c o I 1· i, ( · e in con i e c t ion 1..i L th :I'

.I· I I

;1ff";1i.1:.c; or the Slate wit h o ut: nu a u t l ro rLt.v <)I I nw :

l: h e i. u s ta 11 t case the 1: e w i'l :~ 11o ,c; u '..: 11 q u e .s l: .i. o n

a nr l , thus, the lligh Court,

t~ r P i'l t L ng the wri t a '' ;:1 w 1- i. t of quo warranto,

I ! !
t did not q r a sp eve11 the n at ur e of

prayed for and dealt with the matter s u per f i.c ia.l Ly I

mecli1-1nicaLLy. The Le a r n e d counsel has fu rt h e r s ubrnL

that llow a direction to the federation of Pakistan t~

h aud over the adm i n i.s t r a ti.o n or the f\Jorthen1 /\reas to

the /\z;~d .l arnmu an'a Ka s hm ir (.;()vernrnc~ilt can f a ll within

 t Ji e ;1 n1 bi t o[ a wr i t of quo w a r r a n to . I I:. ll a .s ;1 I :: n been

co11tn11rlecl t.h at; _L;:·;:e~;pective or· the f;:ict that t l iq l i court

t) () jucisdiction in tlle m a t t.e r, ll () Legal

I I I I

r i.qh t. vested in the pet it ione 1-- s ---1:-es ponclen ts j l I ;:; t: i f y .i [g '
I , ,

!
I
I
I
I ' I
! I
, I .
of a writ aq;:ii_n::;t the FecJer at :i.on of 1';1k1.st n:

over the <:1clrni1ii.•:; tra ti v e cont to 1 () [

.11
l\Jo1--L·Jien1 l\reas to the l\zad .r amnu and Kas+un ir'

hie ha v e q .i v e 11 ou r rl u P c o n ::; id P 1-- ;1 l i. o n

ar qruue n ts advanced. It wo uld be expedient to

be.I nw p r o v is ion of ser:t ion 114 of: the lnte r i.m

i. o 11 1\ c t· t .l 9 7 4 so a:~ to ;:11 > l J 1.- e c .i <J l: e :~he rn a t: Le r in

L 1- u0 p e r s p e c t i. v e : -

",Jur isdic t i ou o[ lli.qb Cour·t.- ( ., ) The lligh

I

:j u c .i s a i c: t i. o n a ,,
''I
Court shall ha ve .'~UCh s is
conferred on i.t: by t.his Ive:': or hy any other
I. i1 w.

( 2 ) Su b j e c: l; l o t: 11 i. s T\ c l: , l:l 1 e I l Lqh Co u r t
rnay if it i.s s a t is Iied that no other· ;1dequate

remedy is provided by law

(a) on the application O .cc any <:1qq L- ieved

par t y , mak e an order-

: I
!
( i) directinq a pe r s on rwrlot:rning
[unctio11;;; in connection witll the
i'1 f f ai 1~ ::; of l\ z ad , i ;::i rn rn u ;:i nd I< ;1 s h rn i r
or a local <Juthority l: () r e fr a i.n
r= r o rn do in y th a t w hi c t1 he 1. ,c; n0 t
pe r m i. tl:ec] by Jaw to do, or to
th at w h .i ch he J. ,<; requ i L·ed by
,. to do; or·

I I
 (ii) dec:J;u .in q that any act
p r o c e e d i.nqs taker. by
pe r f o r m i.nq r un c t Lo-i s in
with the affairs of the
Io c aI au t.h o rLt y has been

without l::iwfuJ
;;i n c] i !; of no 1e g a .l e r: [ e c: t: ; or

(b) on the a pp.l .i.<·;:1L..Lon o f anv \.)c~1":;011,

an o r d e r. -

(L) rl.i r e c t i. 1 H 1 I: ll ;::i t <-l µ1~ cs o 11 i, 11

i.11 1\ 7. a rl .t arnmu <ind l\.::i s hrn i r

b r o uqb t: br~[ore ti!" lli.~1ll Court

Lh ii t· I \ 1 <' C n u r· t Ill ;:1 )' ::; 11 I i. .<~ f y
i ,,c: TIO t· bei.n.: \1nld in
( u .-=; tvdy I ii wr 1.t L :JU t h o r lty
or .i n an 1111 law L u I m arm e r : o r

(ii) r e q u ir tnq pe L' SOil l i o lc l int] or

pu1·po1-l:i11c1 to ho lc1 a puh\i(· office
in c o n n e r: lion witn the a fI .ii r s o:

I< Cl s h 111 .i. ,. I I

1\ z ;:1cJ , I ;-1111 in ll i1nd t o shol I

urrd e r w\Jril au t h o r Ltv () 1. I i'1W hi I [

c.1 u.L111::; Ln liold th;:i,t or 1 i ( · ~, ; 1.) ,

I' 'I I
I 'I! . ·,ii I
•
( c) on the app.Licalion of <H.V;t~ieved I

person, rnako an (:) L v L I l CJ s u ch it

C"l i_ r e c t i o n .s
i n c J u d in CJ
to
t \1e
t ne

Co u n c .i 1
pe r so n
anJ
or
th o
au t.h o r i, t y ,
c_: o v e ~ n ~I ! i
I~ i

ment, e x e r c i si 11q nt1"/ power 01· pel. fo rru Ln 1.

111t
any function in, or in re l.n t Lo n to,l '1'.'
11' I ,

l\ z ad ,J a Ill rn u a nd !<: a s h rn .i r r-1 s rn a y b.~1 :'i\ l 1!

appropriate for the e nf o r c eme n t of a I !i: i I I
1

of the fundamental rLqh t s conferred 11' 1 :,

this /\ct. ,,:: I 11,

I
11
1, I
(3) An order sha l .I. not DE rnac]e under I
I

section (2) of this section on

\!1 1

11
made by or in relation to a person
Defence Ser.:-vice.s in respect of his tei,

ccndititon::; of service, in respect

matter arising out of his ser·v:i.re
respect of any action i n rel a t ion .t o
I
a member of the ·Defence Services.

"
 I
''1

(4 )

(a) app l.Lr.a ti.on u: made to the lli qh Court

for 2:: ord e r un d e r cJause ( 0) or· clause
(c) of sub-section (2); and

1
(b) The Co111:t has reason to beJieve that
~ I I' I

the making of an I n t e r i.m o rd o r would! 1

:1 1 1

have the ef I ec t of p r o j ud ici.nq oy, IJ

interrerinq with the c a r r v i nq 0•1L of a!· i

p ub I i.r: wo r k
o1 other w .i ~; e be i 11 'J I 1 ; 1 rm f u 1 1

to the public interest, the cou 1· I.

not make an interim order llll.l"'c;c~ the

of the a ppli.c a t i.on and the Co111·t:, af t er

the T1c1voc.-it:e-<;er.er<1.l 01~ ;rny rdficer I I,'
auL1101 i.<:e(l by him in t.h i.r l1r:'l11dl _ ~a1!i
been given <:111 o ppo r t uni t v of.' 1->elng 1 if'',
-vh-: 1111:,1! Iii
• I 11 ·1 I'
he ard , ::..;.; .c:2!_:ic;fiRcl Lh a t lhP 1 ~.:'.'!!;:r1y ,iii':
the .in t e r i.m o r d cr '·!c~uLd not ha v e I!!_ ·11
I '1 I
effect referred to in cla us e (b) O· lii'I !

t h is .c;ul)·--sec. I: i o n ~ 1:1;
11
~;

( 5) In ~; e l.'. t i_ o n , unLess the

otherwise requires, "pe r s o n ' .i u.: Lucks I!

• . I
body politic o 1~ corporate, any r111 th o r : t
or under cu11l1~0L o[ th e Co u n o i.L cfi_l,
. I '
Government and a nv court or i.:t:'J_bu1~alf 1 'I
than the Supreme Court ol l\zrid .ran\ r 1 11

I. f' I
Vashmir, the l iiq h Cou r t or <1 _ f.011
I '
.ii :! '•
Tribunal e s t abli s h ed und e r a law r el.a J1 111.1111 r
tile Defence SE·rvir~c.';."
1

It is evident [ r otn sect .ion

reproduced above, that onty a person

f un o ti.o n s in connection with the a f f a ;.. rs of: 1\7.i'ld

I
'/!
a11c1 Kashmir can be d ir e ct ed to r e f r a i.n fr om doing
. :· I
a c t: wh ic h be is not pe r mitt ed by law to do 01~ to clo an

act which he is required by Jaw to do tf no such right

,. ' I
j 11'
ll ' ''
._ 111,
II' I
I I '
l 111
111 J,i

11

I ! 11.;1·, I 11:
1
i
 , I
. I
/~}7_'
{,
.' .
::
1·

: I

is shown to have vested in the pelitioners-

respondents arid there is no c or re :;pond it1q 1.egal

duty c a st on the appelJants, no writ could be issue

I

under section 44 of the j nt er Lm Cot~stitution Act. , I

Tilus, 110 relief in form of <i writ could be

even if .it could be justified on 11101:al,

i'uLit.ical consideral:i.ons. untiJ and

it l l fl .s ~ sanction of law behind il.

Jt was rightly contended by the

co 1 111 .'..; n I [ or the a pp e ..L I a n ts t h Fl l: e v en i r .i t: .l .•:;

t.h a t; No r t h e r n Areas f a IL within the deri.tii.tion

I I
I A7.flcl ,I rim111u a nd Kashmir' l: lie IJigh COU[l: C::Ol1Jc1 not
' 1!!
I
1·

i SSllC (1 writ of m a ud amu s . II is c:onte11tio11 \'J ;1 :::; that i. 11

·I: :I
I
I:

' i['
ac c o r d i.nq to section 44 of the tn t e r Lrn Cun.::t.i.l:ution i
•I I
·1
I
:

Act, ;:1 pubJ.ic functionar:·y can be d i.r e c r.e d 'to cJo that I
I I
. I
iI ·I,'
which he is required by I aw to do' but there is no law

which prov.ides that Northern Areas be adm i n is tered by

the Azad Government. We may refer to the followlngl

case .Law:

In case reported
'~
as Masudul Hassan v. Kh ad Lm I,
'
I
I:
llussai.n (PLD 1963 SC 203), it was held t va t an ;1r)r,l.icant
..
I·

#
-...

s e E' I; i 11 g an o r de r or m ; 1 nd am u ~> rn u -=; t s how Lh a ti

r i.qh t to be en[orced

is ;1 legal duty on tile ~.Clrlv <lqain!:.t \vlom ;1 m a ur l am

sr)11t1lil lo do or r o Ii ain I 10111 <l<>ill'J an ;wt.

I
, I
1111 . 'I
Ln Mr s . v . i t w~ n- Ea.9, 11 '
M . 1\ I i_ I~ h ; lll 'I'h € ----111· o v-- . -o f -· I
I·

it !11

.,, i L J issue on1v ir there I

I
I

1·esjdes in the petitione1· some leyal r i.o l i t wh o has

,
1!1
I 11

J_ s so ll ll Ii I has I

to per-Corm or- 1·eJ r ai n fro

obligation

! I

fH·1·ror-ming the act.

I

In case r e po r toed as S ubh u~~~-=-~~~~-~1--~...-

n Ueg v. PaJs I I
1.,,
State Oil Co. 1..,td., l~awalpindi (PL.,D 1980 Pesh. 1.13 I

W(lS observed as under:-

" Now the writ of m:indamus

d i.r e c t i.o n requiring a pe-r son pe
within tile t e r r i t:orial j u r Lsd i c t i.o I
Cou r t., [u11ctlo11s in c o n ne c t Lo n ·
af £airs of l he l"edera t ion or- ;:) PrnvJl
local au t.h o c i 1_y to do some th \.1111

I'
I
11

j l I;
 required by law to do. J ts o b j er: t Ls to
enforce ci plain. positive '' .d s pe rLf i.c duty
.
r.rupo s ecr
__,
oy law when ther<:' is llO other.' · ·;·
adequate Jegal remedy av a i: able. 'Ih e r e t o r e ,
a person claiming a m and amu s , i11 or .l e 1.· to be
entitled to r e ce.i vo it, mus t at I e ns t h a ve a 11

clear Leq a l 1 Lq h i: t o the pe r f o r m a n c e l iv the

respondent of t he pi"lrtlruli"\.- duty s o uq h c t~if
be e n Lo r c e d . /\tHI t li i n duty rr us t be ono which
I I
is c l.e a r Ly cl(~f i 11P<I, imposed 01· e11 j oi.n e d bal
I ;) w . rn o t 11 o r 1v u "I:~ <HJ ;-i l' p I i c: ;111 I J or
m and arnu s rnus r sl1ow t ba t he ha s ;:i l oq a l r Lqh t

to the pe r f o r manc e of -" Lr-q a I dut v l)y the

. c:
l ·' SOU'Jht;

Thus in Lile o r oo f
s ta tu t o r v cluty
right w as b e i nq e n ro r c ect or De1·[01·111<11H·e

public duty was bei nq claimed, ~

cannot be .i ss u e d . 11

This Court h as in an a pp e a I entitled

Covcn11nent of the State o[ .Jarnmu and Ka8htnLt v.

l3urney (Civil l\ppeal. No.4G or: 1993 d e c t.d ed 011

o bs e r v e d as under:-

"'J'he p Ia.i u r·e;1cl i.1111 of e xt r ac t r1 o rn

44 r e p r od uc ed ;1bove, \.IOU l ·1
writ of rn;:indart11.1.s can 01; l.v be
t he re Ls a .I e q n .I. ri g h t which ve s L s i11
1. '
I "'I
aggrieved pe· son aud the pe r s o n aq a i n s t
the mandamus .is sought is under '1 i I, Ii
0 bl i g;:} t i 0 !! to pe r t o rrn ( ,. fro.
performin(J an act."
I II
In the instant case it lias not been shown by I
I '. -· ·_ 1
the petitioners-respondents that the COIH.1 i tions r
!!
11
. I'
.•
11j
 (
\
'i'.
t',

,,

: I
p r e c: Pd e n t for i s s u .i. 11 g the w 1:· .i t pr r.1 ye '.·I f or e x L s t ed I '

view of any constitutional or other stntutory Jlrovisio

So r·ar as agreement dated 28-4-J.949 is concerne i

r;uf.f'ic:e .it to say Urn t contractual obJigati

c:;:1111101. be enforced by r e s o rt Luq to wr i.t

r.111 cl c>ven otherwise no r eLi e E WnS a o uq h t by'

pet i .. t i one rs-respondents Oil tlie bas i.s of

COii t 1· iH' t.

The next quest.ion per~ta.ins to t he j u r ia dl

1· .i o n rJ!: the High Cou r t. It ll;F: been Vf~he111e11 tly

l>y i:IH~ Jen rned c oun se I for the iippe.Llan t.s t h a t:

Cn111·t 1·J<1.c; not .l e q a Ll.v ccrn1pc>l:r>11t. to rlSsurne 1:110 i u i .i.r:dic-

.! '
I 1 !
l .io n ill tile instant o as e u ucl c r .s e c t i.on '14 of tile I u t e r i.m

C'on.';t. i 1·111·.·ion !\ct read w i Ui I.h e p r e amb t e oI 1·1J12 Az ad

I I '. ~ I

,1<11111111.1 C111cJ l\ashrnir. Courts r111<J t.aws Code, The :1 I

' I

j ur t .. «Li c. t Lon of the l l i qh Co u r L has be e n c h a J J.e uq e d by .. I:; i . I

'I

the appelLan t s on two-fol<.l q r o und s :> ')'

I ·j
I

~!
( i) firstly because the Northern Ar e a s do 1 "
not faJ.l within the definition of
expression 'l\zad Jarn111u e1nd Kashmi 1:-' as
I l:li
:· i
!
given under section 2 of tlie rnterim :I
I
Co~stitution /\ct; and
! I
I
u,
'I
I
i
I
ii) secondly because the Federation
 ·F
r.

Pakistan not arue n abI.e

jurisdiction or the ll i.qh Courtf I

cannot be said while adrninisteri

Northern Tlrea.s, tile
Pak is t an performing
cont1ect:ion with the 2f[aJ_rs

Ii
: I,
11 I
, , I

.1
I it:
...... l
I i ni t i.on of the expce.c;::;_i_on 'Tlzi:ld J a rn 111 u ;:1 n <I r< cl s h rn i r '

I
i.:~ 1 r'i':·:)duced r.1::-; belo\v: --

11

"2. '1\zacJ ,Jammu and Kas hm i r' the 1·1 I

11 ! I

t e r r i t or i es of ll1e StElte of .I arnrnu -ind Kas hmi r

which have been Ll.be r a t ed by the c peo~l·e o}'i 1 I :I
I
I

that State and are for the time boi nq unde I

I : I.
t he ad rn j_ n Ls t r a t i. 0 IJ 0 [ (; 0 \/ e r n Ill e I) t i I I l( I s uc n
other t e r r i t: o r i. e s as may come
under its adrn i n i.str a tion;"

'.i
It has been contended on }JehaJf of • 1

I
•I

appeLI ants that the lligh Co u rt; has misinterpreted

aforesaid provision of Jaw by obs~rvi11g t h (J t

definition of the e x pre s s i.o n '1\zad .I ammu and Kashm r ]

is inclusive of the Norther-n Ar e as and that the

'and' occurring in the de.Fini tion be f o r e the

'such other t e r r i, tor ies as may ho6e< he r e.i n a Ilt eld

I ,
I
I·..
[
under its adminislra tion' should be read as w r,

,,
I

...
#
,,
I
I'.
 !I!
I ·,

,,

I I·
. ·1 I
, '. J I
I·:I
It l1C1[; been contended on behalf or tile appe_!_J;::i11ts that

word 'ancl' 1.c; used in conjuctive sense wh e r e a s wo r d

'or' is employed in disjuncUve s e n s.e : if the word

' I,. I' ·:1\,
I '
"an.I ' .i.s changed by 'or' it wo u Ld Lmp Iv lhilt <i t.h e r' ,,
Ii'·
!
I
i '
, I
t h o < <3 a 1: e ~1 s w o u l d f a l L w i t h i n t he il mbi t of ' J\ 7. ad , I a rn mu i
I11 !
' I I '
I :I'

a nd 1~;1sl1rnir' which were I jbe r a t.e d by the peopJc~ of

ii, I·
!!,1
I

v
11·

Statf' berore the promulqation or the :_nterirn Cort:;Lilu-

I.
iI I 1
11

II, I 1

t i on /\cl, J974 and came under its administration 01- the

.11
,
Le 1~ r .i. lo L .i es w h .i. ch may co 111 e u n cl e 1~ t he :1d rn .i n .i s t r ci l: t o 11 of I
I !
'I 1

/\z ad ,1 arnmu and Kashmir Government after the p r omu Lq a tion · i I

of the Interim Constitution l\ct, 19 '14 s nd not both

1, kinds of territories, i.e. those which were und o r the

H.
l'
'!

administrative control or: /\zacl Kashmir

before the promulgation of the said /\ct and thosEi ·

I'

u n cJ e r i l: s co n tr o L a f t e 1~ t: he p r o m u lg a t i o n of t he

Evidently, such an interpcetation of the

\,. i
'l\zad ,Jammu and Kashmir 1 wo i: l d lead to p r e po s t e r ou s

resuJ.ts not intended by law giver; because according to1

._' ,
the definition of 'l\zad and l<ashmir' the I

!
11 II. I
..I
I[!
Legi.s1ature intended both types of t e rri tori es, those
.I 11 I
I ' '1 I
which were liberated
~
and came under the con troJ of l\zad
I
I i

I I
. - -'r I I
'
' - - 'l - I .
I
I : .- :'i .1
,
i
:·;I.' '
,1
11 1, !
I
11
1!
1
1('
! ! ; I
I
I' ~ I i' I
' I
'i l!I fl1
'<·•

11 .:l1. I Li
 'I I

r
' l~l
I!i : .
1•I! ' I
:1, ·41
lj
·11

I! 1: i Iii
~I ;
\ 11 i I; .:
iI ,\ ,I:
I
I
I'I '
! •I
ll I I

:11
11'1
I 1

.tauunu ancl Kashmir before th e :t;hmx p r otnu l q a ti.ou oI the 1:

I.
' Ii' t I I1
I 1
\1'
l.n t e r im Const.LLution /\ct, J(J'/11 ::!!ld ~;bo:;-119 t h o s.e wh i.ch I I '

I
l .u i'I";'
' 1·11
i !

I
, I· I
I
iI' lii1 1,lli
I
: I I
1,; 111· I

Kas hm Lr af t er the pr omu Lq a t i.o n of t he ,;rrn.stit:lrti.on, Ii

I IlIl I I
I 1l1
'I
I I

w h (?. t.l H? I.' ib a r a t e d by the p e o I·' I <~ oI St (I l:e or I)() t· . 'l'h e

1' I

le<1rned c o uns e L for the C"lppeL1ant.s mai ·1 t a i.n ed

a J. t:l10111...1h t he words 'and' i'll'llJ I () (" I

ace .i n te r c a nq e h r1,
yet i. l c: ,ci 11 be done so on I v .such rl c:l1 <inqp'
I

11 e c e ·'' ·'' i t a t e d f or q iv :i. n g t r LI e e f r: e <- t to th e j n t e n t ion

the l,e9i.sJature. lt has been r.ontended t.h a t; i11

.i ns t au t r as e the intention or t he L,eqisl;-1l:un:' can be

given e t Le c t to only if: t-hr? word 'rind' is i:ec1d 111 the

definition as such and j_,c; not 1~e<1cl :is 'nr-'.

i 1 Ii
The High Cou rL wh i l e d e a Li.no w i •:h t he point
I I
, .
I i
I
I

h as o b s e rv e d in para 134 of .LU' judgment as under-:..

I

j ii[
I I I
I i
I I
'
I i'I
"13 4. It i s <l c e l. e b r a t e d r LI 1. e o f i 11 t e r: p r et a - I
I I .I
! ' \1
tion of Constitution or a statute that: when I ,,I 1·11
I
the me an i.nq s of a word or term are not clear I

enough and are not f o u nd in co n s on an c e with

the scheme of tile Constitution or the s t a t ut e ,
or are otherwise found in conflict when used
in the same me an i.nq and context in other I,'II
,, I
parts of the statute, in such si tua lion, the
word 'and' vsed in a particular context WFJS

Li.k eLy tu be substituted and ~0aci as I

0 C I
 1.

and vice versa. This was cleemed

for harmonious meaning of the term
as the case may be, and in
rather than to destroy the provisions
statute. Both the words 'and' and 'or.'·

used Ln t e r ch anq e ab Lv , so as to ad v a n ce
purpose and obj e c I: i v 0 of t he p r o v i. : ; i r in .s
the statute."

Jt may be stated thar words 'anc:I' ;;inrl 'or'

' i

.,
I
ci'111 !)('substituted for· o a c.h ot.h e r oul.v i. 1 i (: is

n~ce.'•."i.i.,1l.1;:!d for q Lv i.nq er.feel: to ac t ua l .i u t e n t ion

I 11
1 I : 1. 1 I
or thr~ r.e q is La t u r e . T\ r e f e r.· E~ II C e be made to the I I'
I I\ i
: I

f o l. low i ng au t ho r i, ties in s u ppo rt of t.:he view that I n

I I

.i.s m ad o
in ;;1 :·:t;~t:utory provision_Loul of necessity t·aL1101: than j:

I
as a matter of expediency:

Jn Syed Yakub Sb a h v. The St:al:e (J>t.l) L 9 78

---

Quettn 158), it was observed that while inter.pre ting a

statutory ,prov Ls ion words 'and' and 'or ' a re interchange- ,,

able for giving true effect to the intention

Legislature. It was opined that the word 'and' is

in a

disjunctive
conjunctive

sense
.sense

but
whereas

very often
'or'

the
.i.. .s
us e d]

in t:en t:i ,or

I11

1
I
I,
l'
1 I 1 ·

11
•'
...
 !(
I
1,
l~
I' I '\ ' I' 111~·1
1'1

I ,
1 ·1
11 :
·,
I ,

1r

ri.~
'~
<:» ;

,I
:1 1{
11\1.
1'

I j,'
1,'
1.eqi.s.lature is best a s c e rta i n ed oy r e ad i.uq the two 11• !1
'I ,

I ,
1 - .

;1

Jn case reported Muhammad Ar s h ad Khan v.

,J & P Coats Pakistan Ltd. l'\nr:achi (PLD 1977 l\rir. 83 )JI ,

I
,I
i l: w;1.··; observed that words I i~ t I cl I an d I 0 r I (.' 0 ll .I cl hE-~ r e a ·i''
I'

I oi r>;:1ch other so as to a s c e r t ain the .i n t e nti ou of the j·

In L\adsl!a Miau v. The State (PI. I J

1), .i t w a s held t hot ill sect i on 5(1) or f~ost J';1kis 11

1.
,
in ; ~
i\nti-cor.ruption Act , 19'.)7, [expression "which there

I
.:
r ea sou to believe to have been a cqu i r e d by

me a n s and w h i c h i s pro v e d to b e disproportionate

known sources of income", word 'and' means ''1',I

.f . I ;
.,
should be read as such because l . e x p re s s l 0 'r 11

read i.11 disjunctive sense, it would lead to absur

In c as e re p or t e d ;1 s Ms t. Ma h mud a Kha t u n

Muhammad Habibur Rahman (PLU 1965 Dacca 358), it

held that conjunction 'or' in Ex p l s na t Lo n to rule

Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code is unhappy.

essence a nd s ub st d nce it r e a 1 ly m e a ns 'and'. 'l'he test

whet he r a person is a pa u per or n (· t i s dependent on

"
answer to the questions: '{l a s the applicant surficien~'
 •,
'· _. 71-r ..)_
~-

in e ans to p ay t he necessary c o u rt - f e e s ? lt 1~ o u IJ

a b s u r d to t h i nk itha t if the ;_i111ount of r h e court-('cesl

fixed, then :insufficiency or the means to pay the

...

L'.'; tile .test; but, if' the .uno un t itself is not

t hen lie cannot be described as a pauper i r·

possessed of property which is worth mo r e

hu11d1·nd rupees. Therefore, even in a

;111w u 11 t of the co u rt - f e e s is no L F ix e d ~ t he

s;ime, namely, whether the applicant has

111 e ;1 11 c; to pay the co u r t - f e e s .

Jn Ishwar Singh l3i11dra v. State or u. r ,

--------·---
I il
1 • I
l11(ii\ :;c 11i50), it has Ileen h e ld that gencr11tly
'
I
1:':I i

'·ii
'or'. l lowe v e r , sometimes even such a r.o n ne c r i o n , x x ,I
Ls
by l o r c e of a context, /r e n d as I () I' I to ,- arr y out the
I
', IiI •
I

jntenti.on of the Legis.l.;-1ture. I i!

In case reported as Salehon v , The State (P~ I I

I !,I
! '

1969 SC 267), while interpreting section 497 of th

'I I
I

Cr P . C • , e x p re s s io n ' p u n i s h a L> l e w i th de a t h o r t r a 11 s po r t a~
I'
I
I

t Lo n lo r life', it was observed that o r d i n ar i Ly 'or' i ' 1

used in disconjunctive sense and therf was no ev id n 1

that 'or' in the af o r e s a i.d expr~.s~ ; on was used

I I
,1 Jl1·
I 1 1 I I 111-~i
 I
I, , i'

· 1 I
-")
~:-·- /
co n j u n c t i v e sense. ] t was observed t ha t

o r d i n a r i Ly , 'or' is used in d i s co n i uuc t i v e

cnn he re 8 ti as ' a 11 d ' on I y w 11c11 i t j s 1 ~ c es sci 1· y to

f o r ra r r yi n g out the i n re n t i ou or the l.egisl<ttlll'l''..

I' I
ln L.H. Suga~~~-~c~ry v. Mot i (/\ll~ 1~)111 /\11. I
~ II ,I
'I

l 11 3 l . i t was observed t ha l l Ji e Co u rt mus l n rd i 11 <Hi I y

;1 d I H~1 (' to the l i t e r <1 I i 11 t e r pre L <1 t .i. o 11 of t Ii e 1v or d c; used.

1101·;:;-_·G;·, t he wo r d s 'and' DIHI 'or' are i n t e r c h a n z e a b Le

011lv i f such conversion is necessary for c a r r y i ng out ,i I 'I

t Ii e i n ten ti on of the Leg is J ;1 tu re • It . was observed thjl I

I
I.
;i
i
j

il 1s the duty of a Court of I aw to p r i m a r i l y a ti h e re t

1:1
Ii,I'
l Ii e sl ri cL I i t er aI i. n t e r p r e t a t i o n oL t he iv o r d s used ,

a n d the substitution of conjunctions should not be made

1· I
. .c I'
w i, t Ii o u t s u f f i c i en t re a s on • 13u t ] J._ 2uch adherence
I!
I'
Ii
des t r u c ti v e of the obj e c t o r t he en a c . rn en t and J. ea d I
I

I
I
I
a n om a I i e s and ab s u r d i ti e s , it is Eri r to assume Il :1

the Legislature did not use the words in that sense l ,I I ),;

in such a case the conversion of 'and' into

d i sj u n c t i v e 'or' is permissible.

; I

In ca~e reported as The rood

Trichur Municipality, Trichur v. O. n, Paul (t\

,..
Kernla 96), while i n t e r p r e t i 11 g . s ~ ~~ t i o n 2(1)(j

II .
! I

'
 I I I

Prevf'11tio11 o f Fo o d Adu l t e r a t i on /\ct, 1954, Iv (1 S held

11

I II I
',
i
11
1\
'I
. 'l
I

t Ii a l 1v or d ' and ' in the sec t j o 11 is to Ii e re ;1 d <1 s ' or '

! ' I
i
b e c a 11 s e a J i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t .i o 11 o L t he wo r d s 1vt I I 1 e ad
I I
: i

to n b s u r cl i t y which could 110 l be t lie :.11 tent i.011 or the 1 1 I r1

I : I 'I
11
I.e g is I r1 t u r e ,
I, I

11
I I I 1'
C 11 c-~-~ y_ ( /\ 1 I~ l 9 7 Cl !\ n cl h r a J> r a d e s Ii 2 9 ~ ) , r n section/.( i)(j) ' I 1 \,

:, 1;
/\ d u I t e r ;i t i o 11 c ~· , 19511 ' tile word. I !I
i11 l'rP.ve11tL011 of Food /\
j , [ :: 1 i
I I J,
d read as 'or' i 11 v i ew or tile fact: t ha t i. r he I !11t
I (111 I WCJS
I 11 J 11 I I
h 11111
wo r d 'and' is not "o r ", a l i t era l interpretation of
I.!! " I
to absu r di ty which C<ll1110l:
b I I I Ii,'. I
Iv 0 I' cl S wouLd I'
i
I
:1' 'r
l 1:
a t t r i b u t e d to the Le id s I <t t u re .

The view t u keu i.11 t he au t lro r i t i e s , r1

I
to a bove , is also supported by 'Corpus Juris Spc

Vol. BZ, at page G73 wherein it has been

under:-

II
Generally Lhe words 'and' and 'or'
used in statutes ar e not interchangeab e 1

I
being strict Ly of Ct conjunctive and disjunc ,j
tive nature respectively, ar.d their ordinary'' 1 I :,,
111

mean i n g sh o u L d be r o 11 owe rJ if i t does no t 1

1 1
1

render the sense of the st a t u t e dubious. It

has bee R he I cJ , Iiowe v e r , t hat suc h '" o rd s are
.I
not words or t e c hn i c a l mean i ng and they i

derjve ~·
r ue i. r Corce and meaning lrom _..__I_
LUC
-
1 '
I
I
.J
context anc.J connection of the matter in which
#
they are used. Ac c o r d i n g ly , the wo r d s 'or'
. I
 I' ' ' I . '· i I

V/_9' ~1 ' j
-p :
id1:!~I·}1: ~ 1!11'
i
, :I 11: i.
.. I
:111. II
I'
t '
and 'and' may be construed as t' n t ere I 1ilttqe<hl. " L e, i
: ·' ',i,: I

when, and only when, necessary to e I f e c.Lu a t e 1

the obvious intention of the J.eq isl ;1 tu r e . as 'I

where the :friL.lure ro ad op t s uc h <:011:-:l:rut:l:ion

would render the rneaninq of the
ambiguous or r e s uI t in absurdities; hut
has been held that court Y.• ~ I I
vv ~L .L J. i e so r t
such construe lion 011 Ly where the act
furnishes cogent proof of the
error."
I\'
i '

It follows from what has been s t at e d

\~. h a I v i P Iv t ak en by t he II i q Ii Co u r t t h Fl + I: h e w o r ;d

used in the definition is to be read as 'or' I

s u s t aLn a b Le . Lve n if it is ass ume d for the

'1 r q u m e 11 t t ha t s uch a .s u b s t:j t ll l: i. o n can be m a d (> i. 11

cl e [ .i. n i t- i on of the exp res si on ' 1\ 7. ad , "fa m 111 u and I~ i1.s I im .i r

I

.L t 1v o 1 1 I d · n o t make any d .i r C e r e 11 c: e be c a u s '-=~ t I1e e x p r e s s i on

"s ur-h other- terr .i tor:-ie.s as 111;-.iy h e re i.n a F ter c orue under

.L ts ;:1cl111inis t r a t io n ' used in the d e f Ln i tion of 'l\zad

.J anuuu ;rnd Kashmir', in context oI c xe rc i s e of writ

jur:isdiction implies the territories which are already,

~. I

,,,
f,'
I I'
\: un d er t_ I 1e ac t-ua 1 con t ro_ 1 o f : t- I1e 1\. za d· J ammu an d 1 ,., ash
_ m 1' r j· 1
1,

,I'
on the date of the institutiou of a w r Lt petition and .j:I
I 'I
not the territories which may subsequently come u ud e r '; '
:
I
'

its contt"'ol. The point

~ can be better il1ustratecl by an

examp.le. F'o r instance, cannot say as

 l: e rr i 1 () r i P. s corn prising I r 1 d LHl h e L cl I\ c:i sh rn i r ma v,

timr~ in future, come under the adm.i n is t ra t Lon or

.Lamrnu an l<nshmir, those wou.1.d be deemed inc l ud e d in

d e f :i 11 i. l i o 11 of I\ z ad J a rn m u a nd I\ a s 11 rn i r , as 9Lven In

.l n to r Lru c·or1.stitution /\ct, 1()7'1 because, in that c a s e it

\vOU ld i111p l.y that the ter~itories comprising ·1 n d i a n

I'!,.' . '
o c c up i.e d i<.a.:;hrnir are the ter rit ori.es of Az ad .Jn11111111 and I

1:1

l'r.ir:;li111.i.1 ;1:;; defined under s oc c ion 2 a nd 5,::-cti.011 11Ll of li

t h r:~ .I r i L e r i m C: o n s t .i t u t .i o n l\ c t , L 9 7 t1 ::111 d thus, a writ

can '-'e issued even again.st an au t ho r i.t v I u n c t i ou.i nq in

con nee t.io n with the affairs of the Jndian held Kashmir.

Ob v io u s l v . such an Ln Le r p r e t a t . i on would uo t only be

preposterous but would be violative of very scheme of

the Interim Constitution /\ct, 1974 and the intention of

f r ;:..1111 e t, .'> of t he I n t e 1~ i rn Co n s I: .i t u l: .i o n Tl c t: .

authority functioning in connection with the a f f a ir s of 1

the lndian held Kashmir.

Tile next limb of t.b e argument of the

II~
1

counse.l. for the appellants .i.s t ha t writ aq i

.•
 FeclP rat: ion of Pakistan c: a n no I: be issued bee riu se t.h at is

not· <1111 en 8 L _L e to the j u r L s Ji 1 r: ti. o n I\ 7.;1d ,_/ C:ll111111.l

Ili q h Court. 1.1: has L e e n contended on hellaLf of

I
I I I.I
I '

that a wr l t can be I I' I

the petitioners-respondents
i
II ' ~
'I 1

is~; 11 (~cl Fl q a .L n st l\ z ad ,J a 1111n u a 11 d l< as h mi r Cou n c ~- L of which I

th e Pei.me Minister of Pakistan is Chairman, it can also

I
' I

be i. :=; .~; u e d even a g a in s t t he u· e d e r at i, o :; o[ Pakistan,

,,
e.c;11Pr' i :1 I. Ly when c e r t a in functions in connection with I

t 11 P. <.1 f f ai r S Of Az ad ,J anuuu and K ri sh m i r <1 re to

peformed by the Government of Pakistan as envisag

I
I

undPc sections 19, 21 and '.J6 o( the lntecirn Const:ituti I

n

l\cl, 1'}74.
,,
'

l\fter q i.v i.n q due consideration to the m a

Ii
I;

\·J e ;n e o f the view th i'I t " w r: it ag a i n s t the Fe fJ e

m a t t er
I
()f P;:iki.stan would be competent if the

w _i LI 1 i_ i 1 l he a m bi t of sec ti on ti 11 of the In t er L m Const

ti on l\c t, 1974 and an act.: or omission i13 comrn i t

i

whiLe performing functions in con nee t i.on with t I

e
I
a f [ a.i r s of l\zad Jamrnu and Kas hrui.r . flowever, the present i i
I I
I
:i ! ,j I
I' I
JI w ri. t petition was filed by the petitioners-· res pond en ts ! I

I I
III
a l l eg .i n q that the ~Jar t h er n are the I
I I
'
f

...
..I
·''
'iii
,
;11 I

'fl!

,;JP
I ·f· i- _/ ! \:'
ti
I,

adn1.i11istr:ation of the Govern111ent of Pakistan tJ11d the

relir>r w as sought aq a i.n s t it and not aq ai n s t tile Azad

.J a mmu a nd r<.ashmir Council. /\s the writ has been file

<v.1ai11st the Federation of Pak:i.~;trin, it is

Thus, an a r y u 111 en t w :i.. th re [<?rc~nce to

f\111ctio11s of the Azad .l ammu and Ka s h mi r Counci.l.

r e l e v nn t to the ma t t e r in c.lispul:e. Consequently,

of' I lie c;overnment of Pak.i.::;t<Jn pu r po i. ted to tn e

rlono 1111cler t he jnt.e r i m Consl:itul Lo n Act, 1914

i.11111111t1e L'-Om judicial revie1,; of t.h e Hig11 Coui t: of

,·rci11111111 a n d K;cishrnir.

l t has been vehe111et1\:.1 y a rq uo d by H;c1jr-1 ~luharnmad

l 1 ri 11 i. r I ~ han , t he L e a r ned c: o u 11 .s e I. f o r. t he pr:~ L i. t: L o Ji e r s -

I
n>..c: llonrJen ts , that Northern !\ re a .~; were . part of tl)0 St ate I
I C

I' '"'"'r
-·1
1·

o I' .1 <1m111u and Kashm.i. r a .s ·i. t existed bef 01~e I 4th of

/\U(Jll.St .l 94 7. Be has ·referred to historical brickground

I I I
1.1 ·
. I

1·
and other documentary evidence on the record i. n support 1

of his contention. The learned counsel has a Is o r e f e r r od

1

to Articles 1 and 246 of the Constitution of Pakistan

( I. 9 ·7 3) and maintained tha l: Nor-thern Areas ar-e not

ii

incl.uded in the territories of Paki.•;tan in v:i.ew of t .e

j
I
I
.• relevant provisions of. the Constitution. The learn d
II
1

I
" I
I I
,,•
I
 I
counsel has cited f o Ll.ow.i.nq judgments of I.h e s upo r i

I
I
Cou 1~ t :; o[ Pakistan wherein it has lie .1 cl 1th
I,
I

~Jorl!l'~n1 T11.eas a r e not Co n s t Lt u ti.o n al.Ly p a r l: or·

u11<'l 1-_,, l t?qn l position Ls the ;.;(11ne /th;:it o f Tl::-·.::icl .i ammu

<Hid l(<l.<;IH11ir::-

I•'
I ti n i Lawa r .Shah v. The i
I:

Nor t l ic rn i\1'."eas Gi lgi t ( vir.L t l'eti t:ion No. ~)S)6J or I 9 78

·-- ---·----- - ····· ~~-- ... -- ---

d i? l - 1 ( l ,·~:I l () 11 I ri-S -- L 9 B I ) i t h a .c; been o o s e r v eo ll. v, the I I -

'

L.a h o t e lLi.cJh Court that the Nor the en A r ee s <,Jl1icli are

I 1'
i I I
iI 1 '
a dminiss t ere d by the Federal Ciovern111ent are not part of I'
I

an v l'n)Vi11ce of Pakistan nor these are.L~3 were inc.luded

in t he tribal areas t hus a r esid e n t of l--Jorl:hern Are as

cannot seek redressal of his gr :Lev a nee by in v o k in q t.h e

writ juri.sdicl:ion of Lahore Il i.q h Court. Heliance was

. I
Recov~_ry of l\bducted Women (Pl~D 195'1 Lah. 813) wherein

i t was he J d th at ' A z ad Kash m i r Ls no t pa rt of P. ak i, s tan. '

Constitutionally speaking tile po.sit ion of Northern

Areas is not different from Az~d Kahsmir.

I I; I

In case re~orted as l·laji____§_~rnh~ __.i: l\l!m~_K

I I
Establishmen;t Division [1983 PLC (CS) 3

it wri.c: observed that the adrn in is t.r a t i.on ,l"'f tile

f.
 -· .o£ :- .~

/\ r n ;1 s 1v ;:1 ~ 11 pc cu 1 i a r e 11 tit y • I. t w Els op i n e cl t Ii ill t hough

I . : ... I
I
t Ii e l n r r i t o q' w a s Cl me n a b Le to t he m1 t '1 o r i 1: y a 11 d c o 11 t r o 1
I
'I
of t I H~ I' r e s i. cl e n t of P a k i s t a 11 , ye t it d i cl no t f u 11 c t i o n !

as ;1 (;ovnrn111ent Department w i l hi 11 the relevant provision

o r· l n 1v n 11 d , l h us , a c iv .L I s er v ;1 n l a g gr i. eve d b v n 11 order

or t he !'resident could not seek the r e d r e s s al of his

, ,
!

grtev"nce from the Pcderal Service Tribunal..

Jt may be st ill e d r Ii n l t Ii e l ii g 11 Co u r t , i 11 ti le
11 i
I'

'.J
·i'

l.ight or- the documentary evidence 011 record, h as '•

I•

di s c u s s e d ·in detail the historical rind Constitutional

Ii " c lq •. 1 • o u 1 )(I o r t he Nor t h c r n f\ r e 11 ~; s p r e ad i n g over

p~igc~-: a n d came to the c o n cl u sio n that t hes e areas

p a rr rind parcel of ..Ja111111u ;111d Ku s lnn i r State;

c onc I 11 ded t ha t e v e n t he re d e r u t, .i. o 11 or Pa k i s t a u

c o n t rov e rt this position in the written s t a r eure ut

by i t • [t may be po i u t e d ou l that i 11

such <1 long exercise by t It e lligh Court ()I l th

. I I

question as to whether t Ii e Northern /\ rea s were

part (l 11
1
u parcel of the .l (\ lll 111 ll and Ka s lnn.i r State

\\1 Fl s not required because it ha~ not been the

<.
I I

I
case of the Federation of Pakistan even in this
I
I·. 1.1
I l1! I
I i: .
'1 I ·1' II' I,
·I
i, 1 ' .T .Jf:
1:1 i

I
r •
 ' I I
'1 i

that these areas wer·e not and parcel.

Court

befot·e .I 4 Lh
,J arnmu and Kashmir

194 7, rather the case of the

been l:l1at: in view of

or P" k i's t an bas

de f i n i. t .i. on of exp res :,;j_ on I /\ 7. <.H1 cf urumu and

the interim Con.stitution /\ct,

qive11 in

areas are not con.''l:itutionollv incl+

I

is ()d!T1Jlli~;t(~l:·ed hy /\7,,:".J c:.-,~e

I

and l<3shmir State a nrl .

11 r ti1C' ~~ Jammu

r sectic:1 L\ !\ r) r·
\·.' r i. l: did not .L i e l I I HJ('

Constitution /\ct , I 9 '7 4 .

1.111 r' r i111

been <Jj_.sc11~;::;ed in in the r : ,

h Cl s
I
I I
1,

part of t Ii is _judqrnent. ;;u r £ icr-' it

t Ile finding.~; oC the

this

on the point that i\Jor.thern Areas

Cou r t l
: '
'I
t
we 1 P historically and Cons ti tutJon<illy pt.11:
.I !

of the ,J ammu <'! ud Kashmir State

parcel
I I
i
I •111.;: I ·,
f:rom nc legul ' ..f.'a r m i.i t; y J~
in I !
.L 4 t h August, 1947 suffer I

otherwise, this i: act h ;~s not been challenged

even

of Pakistan before this Court I •.

the F'ederation .

Tilus, the said findings stand confirmed. "

!\

question a.s to whether the said dreas , w. ·

the I'
:I
11

!
 /
. ,

.i.11· I i.\.11tLon
.-

or the
l:.i.me of the
ar l.h"

(:onstitutiona ! Ly
the I Ii q 11 court,

'; I." \· E' , cl s de[ .i n e d

l\7cHl .1a111111u and Kashmir

Is ;:i cl i I reren I I
•\ c I: L ~ 14 I

In tPI i Ill
constitution

lerirned counsel r 01· the

r-i l together. Tl1P 11
mn l I <' 1
I

IIa n i f
'I I I
Muhammad II 111 '
pr->\ i_ I i.(111€'1 s--respondents, . H0jt1 I I!
I

c·o11stitutionri I ptovisions
m n i n ta L ned

:;l1ou Ld
I I
liberalJy I

so to ascerli1tll the i'

toge the!'.'
I

l\cco1'.'Clinq l.o the I I ,I

int on 1. i.011 of the
,.
petitioners-respondents, I
counsel for the
I ,1

the Nor ther11

incJuCled the: I J 'I I

'l\7.ad dClrnmu a nd l~r:1shmir'

defi11i.1..ion of exµression
l
\J

in view tile other

ascertained keeping
shou I rl be ri
~1
I
l\ct, 1974
provisions of the Interim Constitution I:
of the Sl:C'lte.
historical backq r o u nd
tli e

r e Ii ed on the
counsel has
,I
I
in support o[ his contention:-
authorities

ln c a s e re po r l e d <1 s Chi e [ Sec r e t a r y I R c

Muhommacl /\bJul qayyum Kh

~1roity v. Sardar

• observed thnt t Ii e
SC (/\J&K) 95], i l was
19B3

the Constitution (111 d

we r e the custodian of

pro tr.cl 1 ~H" (I 1i cl strikr. d () \\111

u n cl e t l) h L i ga l j o n to
 provisio11s of l 0 the co us ri tu-
Ii
I
I .
I
tio n n l pr ov i s i o u s , L t \v(I S further observer! wh i Le -1
'1 "1

.interpreting a s:t a,t ut o ry '•'

I J ,'
pr o v is i.on to asccrtn_i_n as to ii I Ill
I·
1~ Ii e I. '1 r~ r n l aw was; re t r o spec t i v e or it w rs ex po s t f H ct o ·

l nw , the
;~ ·~
i n t en t i on of law g1vers should be o s c e r t a i ns d
I~
11

'i
,' ;
Ii ,
l
in v i ew of the r el e va n t »r ovi s i on , While d e a l i ug with
'11 . I !1: 111

11 1·1l!··I
I
I :
the r r i nc i p l a of interpretc1tion of the Co n s t i tu ti on a I

p r o v i s i o ti i t wn s fur t Iie r observe cl t Iin t· l Iie (; o 11 s L i Lu t: I on

11111 st he i n t e r pr e t e d as a 11 o r g ;-111 j c 111 ho I o an

r e p ll Ji 11 ;-1 11 c y between the d i fto r e n t prov i s i ons ol th

c; o n c.: 1 i t l1 t i on , w hi c h r e n d e 1· e cl 1-1 p r o v i s .i o 11 111 e a 11 i 11 .r~ I e s s o

I 11 o p e 1· n t i v e s ho u 1 d b e a v o i d e cl •

I
r Tribal
11 Textile Mills L L_~~: __ r,_a lie) r - '
I
Province or Punjab (PLIJ 1~79 l.a h , 206), j_ t

t ha t ;1 beneficial c o n s t r u c t io n s ho u Id be p l a c e rl 011

Const i t u t i onaI provisions; i l should be 1nterprelc<l

such a manner that none or lhe provisions of

Constitution became meaningless and inoperative. .

1
provi.sio11 of the Con s t Lt u tI o n s lio u ld not be interpreted I
I.
in a Lo nq
i soLa t i o n but should
be considereJ /with other
I I
p r o v i_ s i o n s o f t he Co 11's t i t u ti o fl a s a
who I e instrument I
I
as i I
i } I
.
"'
 j.

, I
I
:1
~
I
I[

1.·
e ll t i t y •
I 1\ l: I+
1 j 11 I II
ln book entitled 'StCltutory Construction I

I iLI 11I
I
11

MA11u;1l' by. Crawford, 1975 Edj t i o n , at page 383, ir has I:: I r 11'
I 1
! '
~ II
I I 11
been obse rved t ha t the Co u r t in a y consider general! 1
! I I
I
h i s t o rv of' statute i n c l u d i rig i ts derivation, i.e.,

v R r i o 11 s s t eps l ea d i ng up to e:111 enac t 11 e n t: , Ct s s ho w 1

legislf.lti.ve journals, I 11 i ls efforts t () asce1

t lie

t Ii c i 11 l E 11 l i o 11 o I" t he Leg i s I n t 11 re w Iie re i l 1v ns ti o u h l

l lowc v o t ,. j t ha s aI so been nm p h a s i s e d t ha l the

I <1 t i v <~ Id s to r y c. a n no t be co 11 s i d e red w he re t he

me ;111 i 11 ~! ~ ;1 re p 1ai11 •

Genera.I Ly sp0riki.11•.J, vie h av o no •111ci110l with

,.
11e l: it ione rs-res po nd e n t· .<> t ha t the Const· i l:u L i o n a L
I l1P

l'l<''1isio11.s should he 1·e;H.I tnq0U1e1~ and i.l~• pr·o\•i.sions J'

.c; ll 0 1 1 I ti no t be i 11 t e r p 1~ e t c d u1 i s o J. ;:i L i o n . 11 ow" 1• <' r , it

does not imply that if: 21 Constitulional p r o v is i o n }_• s I

I i
cIear and suffers from no aml>igui ty it would not be I
I
II
I I

given its natural meanings and should be tlssigned

its
meElnings which -I phraseology does not admit on plain
a

,.
'"
t

r e ad i nu . 'Jt is well settled p r i.n c i.p Le of law that

tile words and phrases employed in

s t a t.u t o r v provision, they s ho u ld be given their

I
me<i11i111v.;; nothing s ho uLd be ;:icJ<lec1 or. :-;ut,stL<1ct:cd t r om \
I ' I
I
;:i 1 ' 1 · o 11 1 .s .i, o n ; an d a l aw s ho u I ' I be i n t er p 1 ·~ t e d ri s I t i s

;:111cl 110! ;i;, it s hou Ld be. 'I'h o co n t e n t Lo n or Lile l o a r n ed

c·o1111::rl 1·11;,t iE the l n t er i m con s t i t u t i on l\c-l., l'l'/•I .i s i

1·

i. n tr 1 1" r» t eel in the liqlit or the v.on s tit· 11 l: i n11 al

ba<·k111 •'1111<1 of Azad .i. !: w o u I 11

~ I
I I
I·
t
I
t:li,·11 . 1,-.ri11Lti.on of e x ):' r e ,c; ;. i '> 11 o[ I 1\ 7,;:,d , I ;1111111 u a ud

1<asl11ni1·• q i.v e n in the Interim Con s t i t u c i.on /\ct, 1<1'/tl is ! :.

,.
I
inclu:;ive of the Northern Are as is no t s us t. a i n ab l.e

be ca us e neither. du r i.nq the period of t hs e nf o i c eme n t

of th P. 1\ 7. ad J am mu and I< ash mi r Govern men t, 11, ct , I 9 70 nor

a I tcr the p r omuLq a t i on of Lile Interim Co n s t Lt u t i o n /\ct,

1974 a nv r epr es e n t a t i.on was q i ven to t he Nor t he r n /\reas

in the 1\7.ad Jammu and Kashmir- l,egislalive /\ssembly or

in Az ad .J arnmu and Kashmir Council. No practical.

give representation 'to the Northern Areas. Thus,

...

I
I

111 l l!
 ' 1, 11 I! 1 u 111

/s'U. ,' . I 'I · _,,·I, 1 ' I

/'\ , ,. . ,_ _J. I ' I. '
u I
I

11

I
-I
cannot be said that if Jnter i rn Co n s t Lt u t i.o n !\ct, 1974
I ! I
I iI
i.c; 1 - c> ;:i cl as a w ho 1 e i n i t .s h j s t o L- i c a J ':) a c k ll r o u n c1 , t he
, II
I I I,

1 i'
s c r) 1 , cv oI the def in i t ion o[ e x pc es s ion ' l\ z ad , 1 am Ill u and ·

I,
''
l\;1.<>l1111i.r' given in the l n t e r i.m Con a t i.Lu+Lo n l\<·t, '
·1 ,r
I

1vo11l1I lJc so e n I a r q ed as Lo lH' i n cl us Lv o of tile Northern

I
II

I It ·~I
con t e nd e d by '
It has been velH'111011 t I y M/s • 1J I·,,

~lustafa Mughal a nd lsll[aque tlu s s a i.u l~i011 L, t el 11

'
i'
11
I
·l

I e:=i1·Jl('(I c o un s e I on be h a l _F of Lile Government of 1 he Az d j

'1

'I "Iii 11( 11 ;111d Kas hmi.r "l though h i s t o r j c ;LI I Y

I

st:1I•·, yet the administr.;~Li.011 of the ar ea s w;:1s

the (;overnrnent of Pakistan by virtue of tile aq r

rli!f-orl 7B-tl-l949. They maintained t na t the c on t r'd I

t-lir uo r t b c r n l\reas s h ou Ld hP qi_ven to the 1\7.ild <;ove

111P11 l <> r the s ta t e of , 1 am mu ;111 t l I< a s h rn i r . bu t <J I I the s e1

they contended that this could be done by mutual

n cq o t i a t i ons and a writ c o u.l t l not be issued as has been,

,r

do n e by the lligh Court in t Ile instant CClSe. The main

'
l
thei r
., ..-1 '
I ~ - ..
plank of j_argume.nts was that the ll i ('th
---":"-~ Court was not
• i
I ' I
c omp e t e n t to issue a w r i, t t:o Federation of P a k iss t a n as II ; rl
I 1,
-'l
Ii: 11

I '!
I',J
! I
I ~· ,1
.I IJ
I
Ii I
 11. 1·

-
:/- c .(

it wris beyond its ter-rilod_<i\. jurisdiction

o t ho t w i s e , the Feder-at ion or Prtkistan W<'lS u o l; am

to t l ie jurisdiction or the 11.iqll Court of l\zacl .1<1111 u

1;ri·;li111i 1 in view of section 1\1\ or tl1P Inter 1111

i<111 l\<'t, 19'/4 and tile l\7,;1cl .t amrnu 2111d

r h a t;
i

t·l"'''' l)pj11q no l eq a l ~~ri11cl.i.on behit1d l:he m;ill.c:>r, the

J e<1 r nec1 1 o I ied on

v11 i I \·F1 s no t co Ill pe t e 11 t . 'I' h r.
1 .
. I

Lli"' r o I .lowing author..i tics:· I

,11 I I
ln The IJeputy Mat'.~.~~; ing ui r e c t o r N<Jl i onal Bank, 1 I 1
~
,\
,,
I. ,,
il IH it 0
01· l nkist<:111
1 v. Ataul ll<Hl (l'l.ll 19G5 SC LOl J,
I I

r ot t j o r a r i sought ag0i11st tile e111ployer.s or the N<itiona]! 1 I·

I I
'i I
J, 1
1

Brink or Pakistan was issued by the ll i gh Court. An

<1PIH~<\I to the Supre111c Court <11u1i.nst the order of

11 i g Ii Co u r t was ac c e pt ed o 11 the gr o und t h ri l wr i t

not be issued because some of the c o nc e r ne d

were posted at the r e l e v an t time, in the Nation<1l

Br a 11 c h 1oc a t ed at Ka r n c h i 1.i I i ic h wa s ou t or

j11ristlictjon of Dacca ll igh Court. The writ

t ii e 11 I g Ii Co u r t w a>s r e c a 1. I e d .

t'
 I

I. I
' I I

I ii

v . ~.?. Vc11b1Lacliala111 Potli lPi.iJ lYS(1 SC (lnd.) 2~)1 l , it . ., I

ha s been held that the writ could no t be issued beyond

l Ii 1: t <~ r r i t o r i. e s s u b j e ct to t Ii e wr i t j u r i. s d .i c L i o 11 o f t he

ll i nh Court. ft was also observed tha t the wr i t cannot

lw i•:<;u0d ngninst a person w ho is not r a s i d i nj; 'within

t he l e r r i t o r y o f I l i g h Co u r t ' • ..I
I '

l 11 Syed Slw h v • I 'o I i ti n1 I /\ g c 11 t , __u_a~j

au r

/\ge11£_L (l'Lll 1Y81 Pesh. S"/J, " Dom ici l e Cel'liricate

is s ued by the poligicril ;1ge11t or (.1 t r i ba l area was

c;111cr.llecl. The wri t was d i sm i s s e d on the ground t h a t as

tile m a Lt e r' perta.inecl to the territory wh i r. h 1·1;1s n

s11bjrc·tr.d to lhe,1vrjt jurisdiction or t lie ll inh Co

the w ri t w as no c om p e t e n t . Tile c o n t e n t i on th~1tj I

1 1 1111111111•1•

1-H i t p e l i l i o 11 ,.,, <1 s c o rn p e L e n l hec" u se it w <1 s c o 11 v e y e

tile person who wa r e si d i n g i n the territory wi t hi n t

jurisdiction of the
I tl i g h Court wn s repelled.

Jn Com i s s i o 11 e r I 11 c o 111 e -·Ta x , /1 z ad J n 111111 u and

llj 1 I!
K11sh111ir v, Messr 11 a j i /\ I j Kh an & Co. Forest l.e s see, I
- I

l la v e I i a n lPLD 19~5 ,PC (A.l&K) c, 2 I it was observed that

,.
, I
I

the Aza d Kashmir Government, for n 1 L pr ac t i c a l purposes, l

I

·1 1
I
It (l cJ ;i I I c o n s t i tul i o nn l f ea t ures or s e pa r a t e c;overn-
I
I
I
ITlCJll. I t Iv Cl S further observed Lhat Azad I\ n ~ I 1111 I r I
J 11

I
terr i t ory uid 110 t const i t u te p<~ rt of He pub Ii c· () f '

;111d was a foreign t o r r i tory wi t h i n tile

1: , 11

I
o r t Ii o r e I e v <-111 t p r o v i s i o 11 o f l: Ii r. C o 11 s U t u t i o 11 •

In case reported a s Noor lluesein v. The St I

(l'Lll 1()(1(1 SC 88), it was held t ha t pa r L of the State

. I a 1r1111 '1 n 11 cl K a s Ii m .i r o cc u pi e cl I> y I 11 d i8 w ;.1 s 11 o t <1

Pak i s t . 111 1·J j t hi n t he mean 1 11 g '.~ or i\ r l i c l e or the

I

< ; o 11 st i 1_ u L i o 11 of Pak i s t a 11 l 1 9 (J 2 ) ;111 d, l h us , <1 r o reign

c ou n t r v w i t hi n the meanings 01· the relevant p r o vi s i o n s :

11

' ii
Of l aw• . j ii : I
1,
I
I I ''
I
1!I iI
,,I I
l n Muhammod ~"'ti
......... ~ -- -,
i (I Kli:i11 v. 'lhe Stale I P 1..1 198~
.,T . II!
SC (1\.l&K.) 11, it has been held t ha t the I'u uct i o n or tile I
I
Court i s no t to m a k e law but to interpret the Law as it 'I ; I
i !11 I I I

I I
I
' ~ I

I I I

l
is. J t has been further observed that if the Court has 1 I ,1
' i
I
. 'I
·,:11
no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of suit or

cause, the parties cannot confer such a jurisdiction by

mu t u a l a g r e em e n t ; t hp s , the decision of such a Court

wou.ld be a decision without jur.is<li.ction.

iln.i
 f11 The St.ate v. Zi.;1-ur-l~ahma11 (PLll

~9 ) , 1 Ii r. r u 11 c t i on s of t h r e e o r g a n s o f t he St a t e ,

Legislnture, Executive and tile .Judiciary were

lt 1-1 ii<; op .i 11 ed th a t ea c Ii o [ L Ii e or 1~ a 11 s rn us t ex er c i s e it

po 1v c 1 ': 1v i t Ii i. n t Ii e l i mi t s s pec i r i e d by t h ''! Co n s l i l u t i o n

'
I
nl wh i r h t lre Courts a r e itself c r e a t i o n, (\distinction . ,I. I
·1.
I1
be t ween 'judicial powe r s ' n1HI the "j u r isrl r c t i o n of tile

I
I ,
- :1
I
lo 1·n111r.111ber that it wa s uo r the lu nr t i o n 01· the
I,
j ud ic i cl r y to leg i s l a Le o r t o q u es t ion t Ii e '" i s cl o 111 o f the I· 1 I 1 '

'
cl ii
l.eg i s l ai u r e in making a pa r t i c u l a r law r f it ha s made
' I '
I:
I )': I,I
it r rvm p o l e u l Ly w i t ho u t t r n u s n r e s si ug t he l i mit s of" the
I •
~ I
I

Co n s t i t u t i o n , J t was f u r t.he r observed that if tile Law I iif I,!I I

',I
.1!
'·I! ·'Ii' . ~j ,
I

1v::1~ .un b i jz uo u s it wa s only l.e g i s la t u r e to ha v e right to '

I', [ l· ~;
'I, I

c '1;i111~ f~ , n rn e 11 d or c.l a r .i f y l Ii0. I ii w if it 1~ <1 s f o 11 n cl by I :1 i ~ I'

i

C: o u r t l '1 ;-1 t t h e 1 ang uag e us ed I> y t h e L e g i s ~- a t u r e c o n v e y e r 1

':[ I:.
I I ;

• : 11:
i
'
d i Lte r e n t ·intent from one whi ch was sought to I 1

'I f I
I
I

c o n v e y e cl ; the Courts, in any c a se , c a nno t change I I

J. a 1v ;1 11 cl t hey ha v e t o a c t wi t hi 11 the s p h e re p r es c r

by t h e t.o n s t i t u ti on ,

..'
rn c ::i .s e r e po r t e d ::i s II a k i m K ha n v• c; o v e r

of P <1 k i s t an ( PL 0 1 99 2 SC 5 95 ) , it has be e n
t h a I a It e r i n s e r ti o n of /\rticl.e 2-/\ in the 1~onstill1tion

..
I 11 - .. -' I - '
or Pnkistcrn (1973), objective reso lu t io n ha» t.cc one ' I

''
r.
I
I
subs l ~1 u L i ve pa r t o[ t he C o n s t i t u t i o 11 • Thus , havi ng lI
r

bee 0111e integral part or the Constitution, it !1 (1 s the

11
II
stun e 1~·ei1~1Jt n 11 cl status (J s other Ar t i c l e s o r the

Const it u ti on. It has been further opined that a

Ii a r 111n11 rolls i 11 t er pre ta t I o 11 is lo be p tac e d on cl i r fer en t

I rn 1 1. r: nr l Iie Co fl s t i t u t io fl i 11 s 11<: Ii r1 111 a n 11 e r t Ii n l any of

i ts 11rnvisi.ons does not become n uga t o r y • Thus, if the

Co u r t ro n s i de r s that existing provisions or the

Co n s t i tu t i o n c on t r a v eoe tile l n j u n c t i ons or l s l aru in

so 111 o r e s pe c t , i t sh o u 1 d hr i 11 g l Ii e ma t t er t o t he

of Pnrl i nm e n t which is c ompe te n t to am e n d tile Co u s t i

tion so that the offending p r o vi s i o n s may oe brought

c o n Lo r m i t y w i t h the l u j u n c Li o n s or Ls l am , Tile super

Courts, 1.11 any case, have no power to dec l a re

cons t i t u t i ona I provisions repugnant to l nj unc t i ons of '

I s l am a s being derogatory to Article 2-/\.

It may be statecJ t ha t the quest ion as to

·I· I

. I !
w h e Lh e r the writ could be issued ag a i n s t the le d e r a t i o n
I · 1

11 -·'I
·-1, -
of Pa k i s t a n t n the instant case has b e e n dealt wi t h in I

I
1'
I
II
11
, .I' •'
I I,
I
i
I
I
I
.I I
11
11 )j
I
I
I .1,
1 I I I 1,
·I,
'I··
 '~''
r·
! I

'I
.i
;

. I
f
I ii II
e ri r I ie 1- pa r t o f th i s j u d gm en L q en e r a .l; y s re a Id. n q , i t is ·.1;1 I:
I ,I I•I
d
j
I

'~f1'
I:,'I I,
residing I

I
wi r h in the territoriaJ l i.mi, ts of ~ourt is not
I 1 'r

co1111H"'Le11t. llowever, this restriction d oe s not. ripply to I I I

I,

I I ,.
I
j

t he lli<Jh Co u r t of Azad .t arnmu <-uHl Kashnii.r a nd t h is

I r o 111 sec ti on I\ 4 oL the L n le rim

Ar·L. Ill/I\, the wrods 'ill f\7,;-1() .I arnmu and Kashmir'

clr.>lc1t0rl by the Ln t e r i rn Co n s tLt u r Lo n (Jst ~.rnc111l111r~11t)

I 11,·1 IX) or 1975. It is due to this ame11c'lme11t l:IJ;1t

II i rill l c1111 t of i\z.acl T-..m1n11

\_I L•111111 o.A
;ihl0

•:JI' i L .<~ <i q a in s t the fun c t ion a r i. es 1 i ke l\ z ad , I a 111 mu

E Lee: tion c 'omm i_ss ione r of 1. I

'I

1\;·,;irl .t nmrnu a nd Ka s hrn.i r who pe r f o r m r IPCI i ons while ·1 I

,c; i t: t· i n q o u ts id e l\ z ad , Jn111111 u ri 11 c1 K;;ishmir. 'rh e 1, e are t

'.l

ce1 1·;1i11 provisions in the i n t e r i.m Co n s t i.tu t i o u Act,

. I
l •

1<)'/I u nr l e r which the c;ovE?[111nent of Pakistan has been 1i.f

j 1 I

invested with certain powers with regard to the a I'f a i r s, r·

of the /\zad Jammu and Kashmir.. Tilus, an ac t i on pe r f o r rne d

I 1

u ' ; ·,I'
in exercise of such powers may be open to j ud i c i.a f I I•'
1
1
t fI
r e v ie w under section 44 of the Interim Constitution. : I' i ' I
/·
I
r

I' ,
l\ct. Consequently,
Q
if exercise of su c h powers by th !1 ·1·
, I t :1: . 1,

Government of Pak is tan ls shown to be v Lo I a t :', ve of law ! lI

I
,.

I·
r! ! 1

,I
I

j1 ll1 ·, I · i
 an o p p r o p r i.a t e order may be m ade in e xe r c i s e of

j t 1 I'." i .c; ( I i. c: I: i o n , d e .s P i t e t he rac L I: h a t o f C .i c e s of

ment o I' l'C1ki.stan are Jocatecl beyond the t er r i t o r i.e L

j u r i s-t LctLo n of Azad .i ammu and K a s hrni r .

'l'o summarise, i11 t h« J i qh t of wh a t has been

s tn t:e<I,
/the r·crnr l us ion which we reach Ls tha l N »r t h e r n Ar·eas

I
I I

par L o f 1\1.ncl .Larnrnu and K0shrnj_1_ ;1s defined i11 the Interim

Const i t.:111 i.011 /\ct, I'.:! 7 £1 •. l~e aLso r e a c h er.l the

I

I. I'
c ou cl us i.o n that the lligh Co u r t o[ Az ad .J ammu and t;;:ishmir I 11
i'

did no t possess the necessary _jurisdiction to issue a ;: I:1 I

,,
II
wr i t aq a.i n s t the Gover-nrnent of f.>;lkistan for: h<inding

over. the control of the No r t h e r n Areas

and l<;ish111ir. Ac co r d i.nq l.y both the above

ar e (lr1·eptecl and the i mpuqn ed _judgment

Court is vacated with the r e s u lt that the writ- petition·

filed i.n the lligh Court stands dismissed. Jn view

the circumstances of the ci'lse, no order is made as

the costs.

. I

Muzaff'arabad, '
• \
'I; ,'
I
i':JI:I:
11
i'' I ,1·'
,
:i '.· '·11
3-9-1994. Chi1e£ Justice /\d hoc

"Mu n a w a r "
 Ba s h a rat i\ hrna d Sliai.kli, .J • - l ;1grP.P. with I .
. . . - - .. ,
I I

t Ii e conclusions as given J 11 the j ud,1<.n: F. ll i· (_I [ the

'!
I

L e <1 r 11 e d L; 11.i e f Justice but l ·J m ur ab I e to subscribe 11 'i .111

.: i
J:,"} !
I i 'I ''
t () t Ii e view about t '1 e 111 ;i i n t a in ;1 bi I i t y of the I ! ~
'I

I j

11 1.
I
;1ppe;1 J rited by t he t;over11111ert c. r I' ti k is tan '

be c ;1 u ~ E' i I) my view t 1. e s CJ i ti appeal. ls unauthorised.

I l o w ever, it Iv i l .l not i:l r rec t t Ii e outcome o[ the

(';1<;!? due l o L '1 e p r es euc e of lJ 10 t 11 E:' r va li d

n p p en l r i led by the Az a rl (;overnme.nt or .Ia mmu

K ;.1 s Inn i r il b o 11 l Iv h j r h is 110

o h j !? C l j ()II rl b 0l1 t Ill ;1 i 11 l il j 11 c I h j l j t V •

P ;1 ki S t 'l II I c.; ., " .. =>

"l'l'.
l - . JI

.l 11 cas e, Vaka I a t 11a111a 011 b e hu l f of

r;overnment has h e en s i[rned by tv1 r . /\

Sndi.q. :..:; "r· r 1' t a r y of Kashmir and

/\[l';1 i rs llivision. Two obj e c l .i o n s r a is e d

b I I, I

r2spo11dellls No s , l to 3 their concise statement

about t Ile ma i n t a i n ab i I i l )' or the a p p ea l , The

11
j

I I I
objections are to t Ii e r· o L I o iv i n g err~r:t:- I I I
' I
I

ha s b een Lo d g e d w i t ho u t , I i

I
• obtaining ~the sanction t lie competent ' f :
'. i I '!
a u t ho r i t y in the l.a w and Just-lee Division, I I
I I,,
•I
. ; I' '11
1
I' I I
1 •

!:: I I 'I
j F
I -i

I:
. I I \1
t
I
I'

&°
l

ij I
11~ I
:~1i
11'
'f ~
 Government of P8kista11. Moreover, tile vakalat-
n arn a has been signed by Mr. Ahmad Sa d i.q ~
Secretary of Kashmir Affairs and Northern
Affairs Division. Mr. Ahmad Sadiq r s not the
officer authorised to sign a v a k a Lat narn a in
v i e w o f prov i s i on s co n t a i 11 e d i r. t h e I< u l es of
Business of Government of Pakistan.

It is provided in rule 19 of

of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Courti

that every Advocate on Record shall before

o 11 b e I 1 ;1 J f of any person or party file in.

t ' Re gis tr y power of attorney in the

form nuthorising him to act. The prescribed

i s s Ii own as form No.3 1 n Schedule Vl. This

or attorney, as 111 en t i on e d signed

l) . . .• I'
by t Ile Secretary of the Kr:ishmir /\ff airs i t v r sr on

an cl JS not accompanied by any novernment order

a u t ho r i s i n g him to act as deJ e g a t e e or the

Fe d e r a I. Government. The question thererore is Ii

whether Mr. Ahmad Sadiq lS authorised to sign a I

vakalntnama on behalf of the Fede r a t ion. I,
, I -
' ,,'
' 1!'

In accordance with Article 90 of the , I

I
,.
:~

1.;;
!
Co 11 s 1- i t: u t i on of executive au t ho r ity
I
I

Pakistan vests inI the President. In C:JccordanC:

, I
!
w i t Ii Art icle 48 the Pr e s id ent has to CJC t

advi.ce ur tile Cabinet or

is prov i d e d in Article 9 1~1e .: im e th:ini :~eli

1 wl
s h H .I .I by r u l es specify tile ma n n e r .i.n

orders (l JI cl other :i n s t: r u 111 en t s ma d e and

i 11 Ii i s · 11 a Ille s ha 11 be n u t: h e n l .i c. a t e d • /\ccor<ling

I
t 11 e s il i d Article the President s ha l l a l so make

r u l es 1· o r the all o cat i. o 11 ;111 cl t r ci n s 11 ct ion of t he 0CfX .

tki:><- h u s in ess of the l~edera I Go v e r nm e nr, llowever,

tile l'resident, Prirne Minister and t he Cabinet ar~

not required by the Cons tit u t ion to exercise all

the po1v er s themselves and it i s p e r m i s s ib l e u n d e r

t Ii e Co n s ritu t i on to delegate authority of the

' i
: I 1

I,
F e d e r ;1 l i o 11 to the sub or cl i nu t e aulllorit ies and I i1
I 1 r

1 ·;:I
<l .1 so l o a I l o 01 t e t It e bu s i n es s o[ c_; o v e r n m e n l .

d o c um en t f i I ~<l hy 1· he
11

,I' I
counsel for Government of Pa k i s ta n to show that 'I,,
I I

SecretC1ry Kashmir Affairs and Northern Aff13irs I

was nuthorise<l by a generul or special order

engage a counsel on behalf of the Fed er I

\,
0

Go v er run e nt, II e r el i ed on rule 7

 JV of I~ u le s 01 Busi11ess t ··-
ho

r:eder;1 I Covernmenl". lie rl l so p ra y ed t Ii Cl t he may

be HI 1 01v ed to file s om e documents to show that

I
11
11 I
Ii e 11; l ti been appo.inted as c ouns e l i 11 t Ii e c a se. ,
I I

Iv i t I1 t Ii e authority or t Ii e L<:lW a 11d .Iu s t ice

11
ll i v i s i o n • T Ii ls prayer 1118 de l0 111 e et an I
I
111
<l r g u 111e11 l r a is ed by t Ii e l ea r u ed counsel r () r the 'q. I

. I
r es p n 11 'I = 11 t· s , R8 j n M ll I Hl 111111 ;1 d 11; 1 11 i I- K ha n t Ii; l l i t l
I
I

l he I. ;nv CJ nd Justice li i v i s i o n <:Jnd no l K;1sl11ni

I\ r f ;1 i r <; ::-1110 Nor l h e r n Af Fa i r« i i v i s i on which

the a p p o i n tm en t s r ouus e l for t Ii e I I

I

(;over11111e11t. lie wa s aLl o w e d lo <lo so.

.I
I
Ch. Fazal-i-llussCJin ha s placed 011 r

I et l e 1· of the Sect ion Off i c e r or the Law

.l u s t ice IJivision and ha s c l u i m e d that the a ut h e n t ir a t i

by the said or ricer is s u fLi r i n e t

con[er Cl u t ho r i ty on hi111 when seen in Li g h t

rule 7 ~n<l Schedule IV or Lhe I~ u I es of

R11 I e 7 lays down executive act i. ons

Go v e r um e n t s haI I he expressed to be Loken

n am e o[ President <:Jnd t IiJ t the o[(icers

 •I f ·1 ,11 ·
l
·11
I
I
-:~
, i
(
in Scl1°d111.e lV 111CJ y il u the 11 t i c iJ l e aI L orders and <

I
ins t r u 111 en l s ma d e and ex e u ct e d Lf1 t 11 e name

President. Schetlule JV i n clu d e s Secretary,

Secr<;>t;1rv, Ac t ing Secretary, Ad di t i o n a l Secret ra •

I
.J o i tt l ~e c r e ii t· r y 1 0 e p u t y S ec r e l <1 ry, Sec t i o n orric~

;.1 11 ti r 1 1• r i. c e r o 11 Sp ec i a 1 llu t y • I
I

. I

'I lie do cum e u t or rice 111 e 111 o r n 11du111 in [ 111

Iv Ii j C Ii Sect j on 0 rr ice r o 1· L Ii e La 1v a nd .Jus t i ce

' ~.I
Ii i v i s i o n of the Govern111e11l o I 1';1kistan informed t l.i e . ;1.1
; {I ),, I

Ku s luu i r Af I a i r s IJivision about the n c m i n a t i o n or Ch. 1

Faz ;1 I - i -11 us s C:3 in as Adv o c a le on Record t 0

a pp ea l before this Court. J IJ

it 1c; 11owhere clc-Jimed that the Pr e si d e n r or Pakistan

ha s h e en pleased to appoint Ch. la z a l+ i+Hu s s ai n as

/\ti v o t ; 1 I e on I~ e co r d • I~ u I e ·; m en t i o n ed c1hove only J

gives the power to au t h e nr i c a t e an order r,

instrument executed in t 11 e n am e of the Presiclen . I

By l Ii is rule the authority to ta i e decision lnl

I

b e hu l I or t IJ e President or to exercise

e xec u t i v e authority of rhe F e d e r a t i <' 11

•
ha s not been vested ill t lie Section
rne<:lning of the word "u u t h e n t i c a r ion" 1 s clear

and u11;11nb ig u o u s , "Au t h en t i c a lion" m ea n s to es t ah l i sh

the c r e d i b i Li t y o[ il st a teui e 11 l . lt m e a ns t ha t when a

Sectio11 or ricer or the Go v e r mu e n t of f>Hkist an i:.sues

lh0
o rd er in the name or /!>resident i t 1v i I I be

t r ea t ed to be order or ClpJ)lOV81 or I he 1!
.]

Pr e s i d e u t or any ol her auI 1101 i ty Heling ;J s

de I e1~;1 t '!e of I Ii e Pre s i d e n t , I t <loes 110 t

or a u t ho r i t y , T Ii e r e 1· o r e Rule 7

above does not vest a u t ho r i t y i n the

me11ti011 etl 1n Schedule 1 v. Ev en o l her 1v j se 1

c (l 1111 0 t he v i s u Cl 1 i s e d t ha t pow e r s of the Presi<len

I·
ere intended to be de I eg:11 '3d to I
1v simullf1neously. ,,I '

'I)
11 ' 1

o f Li c e rs beg i n11 1r f ro111 !>

-c r e t a r y l 0 the !iI1
I:I I
I
Seel ion nrricer I IJ; l l ;111, , 11 e IJ r t fie Ill mu y

exe-rcise t he po w e ! 1:;11:<11-i-llussain rel I o 11

i l em 22 o[ Schedul I
I~ LI le S of Business.

Schedule I J is re 1· a lJ Le to 3(3) of
' I

11 I 11 I,
the I~ u le s of 13unsiness. Ihde 3 deals the 'I

a.l o c a t i o n o[ bus i n e s s , Su b+r u I e ( I ) t ha L Federal ., I

•
Secr e t ;-1 ri at shall comprise of Ministries and
 I) i v is i ()II s s ho wn 111 Sch e du l e I. Suh-rule (2)

d0\\111 t Ii e Pr i 111 e Mi 11 isl er 111ay constitute

11e1v ~li11istry. Su b+r u.l e (3) I ;~ y s do w n ns f o 1. I. ow s : -

" The bu s i n es s of tile Go v e r um e n t shall 1 ·

distributed n 111 o n g s t t Ii e 11 i. v i s i on .I' I

(
I

In the 111a1111er i n d i r n t ed .in rule 2. Provided 11

that the d i s r r ibu-i r i o u of the business or the I

, 1 I
c on stit u ti o 11 o[ l I1e I) i v i si o n 111 a y he m o d i. f i ed I
I 'l.
1

r r o 111 ti 111 e to t i 111 e iJ y l Ii e Pr i 111 e Mi n i s t E' r •

11

I!
• I 11· I'
Sub-rule (3) hn s l l10 effect of distributing t
I 11 J ~

j,
.I
t '1 :' h 11 s i 11 <:' ss of t he Lio v er n 111e11 t • j I I avs I 'r'.
• I

d 0 \\Ill l Ii e subjects r eLa ta h I e lo t Ii e Divis.ions f

I 11 e 1:ederal Government. Schedule II does n t I

a u t h s n ti c a t e or d el e g u re uny power. only la

cJ o wn th a t w h ic h subjects iv i I .l be d ea L l \\I i. 1 Ii

a p; 1 1· t .i cul a r d i vi s ion . ;J ll cl Ju s tic e I l j vi s i 01

'· , 1 ·
111e11t i on e d al serial No. 2. 2 a II cl i l COii t iJJlll, ,
. I

i t
I
e111 s , 1 t do es not luy ti own that power Io

Federil I Government i ti respect of these 2 ()

w i IL be e x e r c i s e a bl e by t lie Officers or the

llivisio11 by themselves. I; or instance al No.

o <: 01 r s t: he fol .low i 11 g s u bj ec t : "The I\ U or 11 e y Gen er a 1" .I I

I l do es not m ean
I I
t hn t ;111 o f Fi c e r of tile Go v e r tun an t; I
i .

,.
!'' . "·11
' ,1' ••

1,
: .
· I .
 I

I
I
Ii
I ~I l'
1

) I' I.

in the a 11 d ,J LIS l i Ce llivision w ILL appoint

I
I
I
11 I
l Ii e 1\ l l o r 11 e y Genera I I' ;1 k is t ;111 l 11 Ii is own I 11
I
I: • I
I'

d i sc r e t i ou • It o nl y m e an s t Ii n t when the 111 n t t er I

or il jl p 0 i n t Ill en t of At t u r n e y Gen e r a L of
!11 !1

.1
I

Ii 'ii
·111 l
I I·
I I
lI I
is lie i 111~ collsidere<l i t w il ! be processed 111 the
I Ii,
.lu s t i c e Division cl II d art er t Ii e a pp r o v a,

or l' r e s i d e n t o[ p (1 k i s t ; ) I\ any Of ricer

t Ii ii t J l i V .i <; i 0 ll 1 may .i s s u e the l~overnrnen t

und e i It i s c; ig n ;.1 t u r e i 11 t Ii e 11; 1111 e o r the 11resid

I l I :_>;1ds to t he c o n cl u s i o n t hat t he let ter 0

t he ';!."(lion Officer placed 011 t Ii e recor<l do es no

co11l;1i11 the » pp rova l [ t Ii (> l1resicle11t. fh e r e I' o r e , 11, !! f

()
, , .1 1: ··I
11 I I'. 11
! I: : 1; I
i l cl o e s not carry tile a u t lio r i t y of the Federation. l 1· ii I'.,
•I I I I i I~ I
t\ccording t u r11 I e I ~) Order IV or the
:i : j I I
11fItI11
I.
I I'
I '
. I
•1 ·1 ,. I •
•'
JI .I I
/\7..;1d 1;111111111 nnd Kashmir Supre111e Court Ru l e s power of I i I ' l ' ~ 11
1

!
•
; I I
l :. II
I • I I
a t t o r n ey hns t 0 ue riled i 11 tile Court I> y the I 1 rj,

:I I 11!

Iij; ;·
perso11 or a u t ho r i ty i Suc h power or a t t o rn ey i c; to

1
be s i J~ 11 e d el t her by tile par l y or an au t ho r i s e d I j l

agent. /\s ci l r ea d y noted l It e or the

;j I JI· II
I

K<l s h111 i r Division h;1 s signed the v a k ;1 lnt -

0

n amu • Therefore, the o 1· r i c e m e m o r :-1 n d u 111 or the

Sect i on or I i c er of the l,;11.; a 11 J .Ju s t j c e u i v ~I

111 il 1 l \' Ci-1 Se ; 5 or 110 he Ip bec au s e it Wf-1S

ri 1 e1l Iv i ( h t 11 e 8 p p e nl , Si llC e il h;-1 s no t be

S Ji() Iv 11 l I 1; 1 l Mr • A 11111 cl d Sn d i q \vilS duly n u t ho r i <.;:;-cl t'

I
' I
I

<:; i )~ 11 1)11 1> e Ii ;1 1 r or (:overnmenl or

is rendered l Cl Iv i l ll 0 I l l 1 ;1 ,.,, rul

c-111t !tori t v,

There LS .i udg111 en t or t 11 i s Court on

t It i s point iv 11 i ch a ppen r s l (l me <o he direct

I
out ho r i t y. I 11 Azad ,J & K Gov e r ruue n t vs. l la b i bu llah '1· ~
I
il

l.011 e I l' 1. D 198'1 s.c. (A.JK) J:) 1 a 11 a p p ea l 111;-1 s riled 1 I

() 11 he ha l I or the C:ove1·11111e11 l I) y the Addi l io n a I

Advocte- General on the n u r ho r ity of

signed by the S e c r et ;1 ry I . ri w• An objection was

rni:"ed by the 1.earned counsel for t· he respo11c.Jent

I
I

in the case t Ii e t:over11111ent 110 t

a 11 y direction the ;1 pp ea .l ma y be rited

t his Court • ln order t () asc er t a i n Lile

f <1 c1 s l Ii e r i Le of t IJ e Law DepClrtment wa S sumr

Cl ll ti i t was [ ou n d t Ii ii t l he Law Secretaryll

0

a p poi n t e d Additional 1Advoc<.1le-General us Ad

 (\
~1 r __....?!"I
,I.
·1

I I
I
I 11
• i

u 'i .\
Ii
I

I
~I I ·I I
j/ , I
II I

l 11 l Ii ,, c ii s E' and d i re c t e d I 1 i111 to n p p ea I

!) II l 11 () n ppr o v ;1 i Wi1S o b t a i u ed Go v e r nm e n t

fl II (1 l I1 e v ,., k ;1 l Cl t 1ia m 8 exec 11 t e ti hy the Law Secretary I I

, I J
, ,'I.
I
·I '
w ;1 c:; I r11111<1 l () be u na pp r o v ed , It wa s observed in Ii
·I
I 11.I
jl<ll'il ii or tile j udgm eu t l Ii ;l l : - I J•I I

: j

II
J\ 11 a p p ea l o J' pe l i l i 0 11 r0 r I ea v e to .i ppeaI
c Cl 11 v a I i. d J. y IJ e i. 11 s t· i t u t e d i [ i. l 1s p r '.' -.: e 11 t· e d
by cl person c omp e t e n t lo institute it. llere
111 this case S<irdilr l(nfique Ma luuo o d h a cl no I i
n ut ho r i ry [rolll" c om p e t e n t person, i.e., l' h
I
1:over11ment to .i n s t i t u t e t Ii e pet i t i q 11 • N
l a bo u r e d argument 1. s 1· equ i r ed to l r ;~ c f? OU
'
I I

th e r e a s o n , Sa r d a r Af ra b Ahmad K Ii a 11 , 1-1 Ito Ii a I

si g n e d t Ii e inst it u t e th
;.1 pp ~a I n r p e t i :- L o 11 I' o 1· l e ;-1 v e to a pp e D ! L 11 th
:-::upreme Court, 110 direction ,. r () 111 th
1;overi1111ent ro mo v e ;111 n p p e aI or u p<.?l i Li
for Ie a v e to n pp e n l a n d , therefore, Ile
Ln c omp e t en r to n u t ho r i s e Sardar Ha [.
Mahmood to move tile petition for
appeal in the Supreme Court."

l t 111C:1 y be use[ul t 0 reproduce par,

o r 1 '1 e j u cl J.! 111 en t : -

If
Bes .id e s r u J e I ~ J o f o r d e r 1. V o [ t h e f\ z a,
Ja111mu and K a s Ii 111 i r .'~ u p r e ITl e C o u r t R u 1 e s , 1 9 7 8
regulates t I1e p r o c ed u r e in t hi s b e h <:1 I r '" I 1 i c h
Jays down the con ti it ions t h at are nec es s ar y
for investing <111 Ad v o c a t e w i th the uu t ho ri t y
to ac t on b e hul I or· ;1 person. The r e l eva n t
provision is: I I

"I'v e r y ~ Ad v o c a le 011 record sha 11 before

I ·1 .,
u c t i ng on b eha l f or any pe r son or pa r t y i 1~ , . 1 '

I!.
I I,
I• ·I I.
11·
!
I
I
.. , I
;
. I
. i !I
II 1
I I, '

! I· . I
\jl
.J
1.' I 1
I'
;
I
•. I
'·;

. i'
ri le i 11 t he I~ e J~ i s t r y a rower o r ;1 t torn e \
'·
. . I . lj
i 11 t he pres c r i bed r0 1' tn .u t ho r i s i ug um
1~

8C t • I
l 1

This prov is i on ~v o u l cl c l e a r 1 y sh o w t h <1 l' be o 1

<l n /\ d v o c 8 t e c <111 ;1 cI for a pa rt y he
r i r S t l y h Cl V e ;J II il u t Ii 0 I' i t y h y h l Ill t 0 (I 0 S0

secondly tile nutllority must be in

the party. un l ess these two
co in p l i ed 1v i t Ii <l u ;:i c I i on t H k en by H 11

011 h e ha I f oI a person wo u l d no t be d
I> e ;-i v 8 l id per r o r 111 H 11 c e of Ii L s f u 1'1 c
the a b s en c e or ;1 duty executed,
;-itlorney it 1vo 11 I ti he said t ha I
Advocate ha d 11 o ;1 u l Ito r i t y to sc t 011

l Ii n t p e r so 11 • A 11 I e " d e r w Ii o I' i. l e s <l

Io r l e a v e to a ppen I cannot ~lo so

Ii e i s a u t Ii o r i s e d 1 11 iv r i 1 i 11 v. I> y suc h
T Ii er er or e . I i I i 11.1~ 11 l ;1 pet ; t i o 11 on Ii:: It ;1 I ·
Government hy S;.nd;ir k a Li q u e tvL1l1111ootl w hr l~ 11

no t been duly ;1ppni11ted by the (~(lver11111i:-11- 'I

1"1iltng, :'c.
1:1 r eq n i r e d llJiJe1 iUie~, 1s n·I ;j. I
on l y a n i r r ? g 11 I ; i r i t y 1v I H c 11 111;, I b e c 11 r ? d a t . I . r

I
subsequent· s t age IJ11t it is also co11111let:el1il1,'I:, 1J.ll

de v () i d 0 r v ;1 I i d j t y. II ~ I I
I''d:
T. h e r e r n r ~ , 1._r o u I c1 c.i i s in i s s

liy I It e

r i led I> y t:ov e 1·11111 e111 I\ z 8 cl . J ii Ill Ill u ;111 d

be nr c ept ed ,

~1uz11f'!';1rabC:1cl, ,J uuur:
1'1.9.199'1.

OIWER OF TllE COURT:

1\zc.lll
/\ppeal No. 3'1 or 1993 t i rI ed 1

(~over111nent v. Malik Mu h a nuu a d Ni s k e e n K o t h er s ' is ac

'
w i t I1 11 o o rd er H s t o t l 1 e cos t s .

\, majority view Appeal No. 37 or 1993 titled

,.. PakislHn v. Malik Mu ha 111111 il d Mi. ~ k e e p . & o t h e r s ' 15
.I ; ;
t
i
# with 110 order as to costs. ,
1\il)· :!
'
1
I ·t ..
I
I
r c'1.:1 ·;;/,: .JU<;\ i re .iu o gje

l
~ h I ;: ; l I fl r ;l h a d , I

l!J.q.199'1.