Ashraf Hussain (Petitioner) VS Aman Ahmed Qazi and Ors (Respondent)

ORDER SHEET

ORDER

SHEET

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C. P. No. D - 4398 of 2015

Date

Order with signature of Judge

Before:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

Mr. Justice Aziz ur Rehman

Petitioner present in person.

Mr.Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, advocate for the respondent /Sindh Bar Council.

Mr. Muhammad Yousif Sahopoto, Asstt.

Advocate General.

Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan, Deputy Attorney General.

O R D E R

1.Through instant petition, petitioner appearing in person, has impugned the order dated 11.04.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Committee, Sindh Bar Council at Karachi in respect of PMC Case No.58/2012 filed by the petitioner against M/s. Aman A. Qazi and Rizwana Patel, advocates, whereby, the complaint of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2.Notices were issued, pursuant to which, Mr. Salahuddin Khan Gandapur, advocate appeared on behalf of Sindh Bar Council and raised an objection as to maintainability of instant petition on the grounds, that impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee can be assailed by filing an appeal before the Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, therefore, according to learned counsel, instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It has been further contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Sindh Bar Council that the complaint of the petitioner, was otherwise misconceived and not maintainable even before the Disciplinary Committee as the petitioner had no privity of contract with the respondent lawyers, whereas, allegations were totally misconceived.

3.While confronted with hereinabove legal position with regard to maintainability of instant petition, petitioner appearing in person, could not assist this Court as to maintainability, nor could satisfy the Court as to why the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy provided under the law.

4.We are of the opinion that once an alternate remedy is provided by law against an adverse order passed by the Forum, party cannot be allowed to abandon or bypass such remedy without any lawful excuse, and to approach this Court directly by filing a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed in limine for being not maintainable. However, before parting with the order, we may observe that petitioner, who is appearing in person, having no legal assistance by an advocate, may be at liberty to file appeal against the impugned order alongwith an application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal constituted under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, within two weeks’ of this order whereas, it is expected that the Appellate Tribunal may consider the condonation of delay in filing appeal sympathetically, keeping in view, the time consumed before this Court during pendency of instant petition since 23.07.2015.

J U D G E

J U D G E

A.S.