Find a Lawyer

(a) Houses of Parliament sod Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order (5 of 1977)‑

---S. 5(1)(a)(iv)‑Senate Election Act (LI of 1975), S. 13‑Election petition ‑Estoppel, principle of‑Compendious statutory remedy of an election petition, held, was not qualified or controlled by an exercise of a prior right of objection before Returning Officer to be dealt with summarily under S. 13‑No such restriction or limitation could, therefore, be imported by reference to principle of estoppel. ‑[Estoppel].

Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Election Tribunal 1982 S C M R 307 distinguished.

(b) Evidence‑

‑‑ Election petition‑Record showing that respondent relied on documents filed with petition and nomination papers filed by appellant‑Appellant consented to all such documents to be brought on record‑Weight and effect of such evidence, held, could be a matter of argument but in its presence, it could not be said that respondent led absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

(c) Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order (5 of 1977)‑‑

‑‑ Art. 5(1)(a)(iv)‑Senate Election Act (LI of 1975), S. 48(3)-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 59‑Words "Professional", "technocrat", "and other", "recognised" and "high level " Meaning and connotation‑Use of words "and other" between "technocrat" and "professional" establishes a link, an identity or a similarity‑Technocrat has also to be a professional of a sort‑Phrase "professional competence and expertise"‑Interpretation Person without professional qualification but who is otherwise professionally competent, which professional competence was nationally or internationally recognized, can become a "technocrat" if he fulfils other conditions in definition of "technocrat."‑[Words and phrases‑Interpretation of statutes].

The opening clause "five shall be elected by the members of each Provincial Assembly to represent Ulema, technocrats and other profes sionals" has been lifted from Article 59, sub‑Article (1), clause (d) of the Constitution. The use of the words "and other" between "technocrat" and "professionals" establishes a link, an identity or a similarity and the technocrat has also to be a professional of a sort. This is so because of the meaning of these two words "and other".

As the words "professional and technocrat" have both been separately defined, the dentition being, according to its language, hard and fast it is ordinarily to be taken as exhaustive of the meaning. A difficulty, however, comes to the surface because in defining the word "professional" itself the word "professional" has been used with the word "qualifica tion". Used as an adjective governing the word "qualification" its connotation is not co‑extensive with the non professional. It is, therefore, clear that, however, slight may he the difference in its meaning in its cognate form the word has been given a different meaning. This appears to be true of the definition of technocrat also where too the word "professional" has been used as an adjective qualifying this time competence. If the use of this word with competence brings in the whole definition of professional contained in explanation (c) in addition to what is already provided for its the definition of technocrat then an incongruity crops up. The interpretation that technocrat is professional with a distinction that he should not be practising in his specalisation by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment, follows no particular principle as in every other respect he must satisfy the definition of a professional. If the use of word "professional" with competence brings in the whole definition of professional then there is no method of truncating or limiting it ; so as to exclude a portion of it. In any case, even this view recognizes the difference in the use and scope of the meaning of the same word "professional " The subject, the context and the purpose are all suggestive of the fact that the word "professional" has two distinct meanings the one given in explanation (c) and the other governing the words "qualification, competence and technocrat" as such. To define a word by using the word defined offends against all canons of interpretation.

If we have to ascertain the ordinary, plain meaning of a word we don't go to statutes defining that very word. If that were permissible then Explanation (c) solves the controversy. The ordinary plain meaning of a word wheresoever required to be ascertained has to be gathered from outside the statutory definitions which serve the needs of those statutes.

The word 'recognized' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "Actual and publicly known". The national or international recogni tion of professional competence of an individual may come about in various forms direct and indirect. Recognition is a formal or official act by a university, seat of learning or professional body and the Government.

Undoubtedly above instances of direct recognition will certainly ex facie establish the competence of the individual. There, however, appears no particular reason to restrict the recognition only to such direct and formal acts. The indirect recognition at the national level may come about in diverse forms in associating tat professionally competent individuals in framing of the policies at the national level, in administering institutions and projects and in representations abroad in a particular specialty. The "nigh level" should not be restricted to the highest level because it implies a level lower than toe highest and higher than the intermediate. The degree of independence and the absence of accountability are tests extraneous to the requirement. "High level has reference to experience and expertise" and it need not be in the capacity of "head of ministries. statutory corporations" etc.

Where profession or .professional has been defined, that definition fully governs the situation. 'Where it does not, and resort has to be had to its ordinary plain meaning then it is "vague and neither static nor rigid" in what it conveys. Having found a pace in the Constitution itself it is necessary that it should retain its flexibility and adaptability. The scheme of the Explanation under consideration appears to be to emphasize in Explanation (c) professional qualification, its recognition and experience in a specialized area of knowledge, and practice in that particular specialization. In contradiction to it there is no mention of qualification in Explanation (b). It talks of professional competence and experience and expertise for administering or managing a unit. Expert has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "one who is knowledgeable in specialized field that knowledge being obtained from either education or personal experience a one who by habits of life and business has particular skill in forming opinion on subject in dispute". Experience and expertise and absence of use of the word "qualification" in Explana tion (b) emphasizes the practical side rather than the academic.

Held, a person without professional qualification but who is otherwise professionally competent, which professional competence is nationally or internationally recognized, can become a "technocrat" if he fulfils the other conditions in the definition of technocrat.

Robbin Herbal Institute v. Federal Commissioner of Tones (1923) 32 C L R 457 ; Asher v. London Film Productions (1944) K B 133 and N. E. Merchant and another v. State A I R 1968 Bom. 283 ; Black's Dictionary Fifth Edo. ; Bindra, 6th Edn. p. 45; Menakshi Devasihanam v. Madura Municipal Council A I R 1928 Mad. 569 ; Oxford Concise Dictionary; Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary ; Shorter Oxford. English Dictionary Corpus Juris Secundum; Vol. 72, p. 1215 and Encyclopaedea Brittanica, 15th Edn., Vol. VI ref.

(d) Interpretation of statutes‑

‑‑Definition of a word‑To define a word by using the word defined offends against all cannons of interpretation.

Bindra, 6th Edn., p. 45 ref.

(e) Interpretation of statutes ‑--

---Definition‑Definition in a statute controls interpretation.

(f) Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order (5 of 1977)---

---Art. 5(1)(a)(iv)‑Senate Election Act (LI of 1975), S. 48(3)‑Election petition‑Biodata of candidate as projected at time of nomination, held, was an admitted piece of evidence.

Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1985

Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Raja M. Anwir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 30.

Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1985

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Islam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Respondent No. I in person.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 30.

Shahid Hamid, Advocate‑on‑Record (with permission) and M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 9.

Date of hearing : 27th November, 1985.

JUDGEMENT

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J

.‑Two appeals under section 48(3) of the Senate Election Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise out a judgment of the Election Tribunal, dated 28‑4‑1985 whereby the two appellants were adjudged to be not technocrats as defined in Article 5 (i) (a) (iv) of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977 President's (Post‑Proclamation) Order No. 5 of 1977 (referred to as the Order) and hence not qualified to be elected to the Senate against the special seats.

Elections to the Senate were held in the Punjab as provided under Article 59 if the Constitution and the Act. Five special seats reserved for Ulema, technocrats and other professionals were required to be filled by members of the Punjab Provincial Assembly having single transferable vote under a' system of proportional representation. The two appellants alongwith twenty‑nine others, all parties to the present proceedings contested. Ultimately the two appellants were amongst the five declared elected (not so far notified) to the Senate. The respondent No. 1 there upon filed an election petition under section 34 of the Act challenging the election of the two appellants on the grounds that they were not "'either a technocrat or a professional or Aalim" and hence not qualified to be elected to the Senate against these five reserved seats. He sought relief in the following terms :‑‑

" It is, therefore, prayed that election of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be declared void and the petitioner be declared elected to the special seat reserved for Aalims, technocrats and other professionals. It is further prayed that the notification of the result of the election as regards respondents Nos. I and 2 be stayed meanwhile."

Mr. Ihsanul Haq Piracha appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant No. 1) resisted the claim of respondent No. 1 and on merits took up the stand that "the answering respondent besides being a businessman has professional competency in business administration and co‑operation and has also other qualifications bringing him within the definitions of a technocrat. The details were said to be contained in the nomination form. He also stated that "the answering respondent being technocrat was duly qualified to contest the election and this was the reason that no objection was raised at the time of filing of nomination 5rm."

Colonel (retired) Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant ho. 2) also resisted that clam of the respondent and took up the plea that "the replying respondent falls in the category of Technocrat" and he based his claim on the following facts :‑‑

"The replying respondent is a Technocrat in the agricultural sector. He discovered seed of the best quality in the world, which is known after his name as Colonel Basmati. It is famous for its longer grain and quality and superior to all other varieties in the world, including Bharat. He is a pioneer of this unique quality of Seed, which has been recognised nationally and internationally. In this respect, affidavits of highest authorities in the agriculture sector are enclosed with this written statement. The replying respondent is Member of the Government of Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (P. A. R. C). This is the top scientific council in the agricultural sector. He also recommended to the Government the formation of Dehi Markaz, a unique experiment for the Socio- Economic uplift of small farmers raising per acre production, employment of idle farm labour and thus De‑Urbanisation of farm labour from over‑populated cities. This has been nationally and internationally recognised. He is running it personally since 1965 and is visited regularly by Pakistani and foreign dignataries. This concept of his has neutralized the middlemen and has linked up production with Inputs, marketing processing and daily earnings through small dairies, small poultry units and village .ponds fisheries, which has also got national recognition. He was the founder Member/Director of Agricultural Development Corporation of Pakistan. The replying respondent is a Director of Federal Rice Council, Member of the Federal Integrated Rural Development Programme Advisory Council. He is member of the Federal Dairy Development Board and also Member of Federal Seed Council. Besides being Member of many other Federal and Provincial Councils, he is Member National Advisory Council for Planning, comprising of only twelve experts in their fields from the entire country, Member State Bank Agricultural Credit Advisory Com mittee and was taken to Majlis‑e‑Shura at the only Agriculture Specialist and a Technocrat of the Province of Punjab. The replying respondent discovered "Colonel Basmati" the world famous rice variety and introduced/produced on his Farm at Kot Mubarak. He made immense contribution in increasing the agricultural produc tion. His Farm at Kot Mubarak serves as modern agricultural unit, where all the agricultural inputs, including loans for livestock end credits by the Co-operative Department are provided to the growers to raise their per acre production and get the maximum price for their produce. His Farm and Dehi Markaz have been declared Models for visits of the foreign agricultural scientists and experts. He has over twenty years operational experience and he has been managing the Dehi Markaz unit for these long years. It is further submitted that the replying respondent offered Dehi Markaz Scheme to the Government to 1965 for adoption, which has been adopted by the Government. The replying respondent was the only agriculturist from the Punjab, who was nominated in Majlis‑e‑Shura Federal Council of Pakistan because of his technocracy in the agricultural sector. He is the author of a book on Rural Problems and Solutions, which has been recognised nationally and by foreign Governments. He is also administering and managing Dehi Markaz Unit at Kot Mubarak, which is his own creation and has now been adopted by the Government. It is also submitted that the replying respondent's source of income is from this agricultural sector.

For all the abovementioned reasons, the replying respondent is a Technocrat within the meaning of explanation to Article 5 of the P. P. O. 1977.

The following issues were framed by the Election Tribunal‑

"(1) Whether respondent No. 1 (Sh. Ihsanul Haq Piracha) and respondent No. 2 (Col. (Retd.) Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah) are not technocrats as defined in Explanation to clause (1) of Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977.

(2) Relief."

The respondent did not lead any evidence. He relied on the particulars provided by the two appellants in their nomination papers and the Bio data appended therewith.

Appellant No. 1 appeared as his own witness and produced the following witnesses :‑

"(1) Mian Abdul Hadi, Manager Imports/Exports and Acting Secretary, Ferozsons Laboratories Ltd. He stated about appellant No. 1 being the President and Chief Executive of the Company since 1968 up‑to‑date.

(2) Muhammad Akhtar, General Manager, Mercantile Co‑operative Finance Corporation Ltd., Sargodha. He stated that Appellant No. 1 has been functioning as Managing Director of Mercantile Co‑operative Finance Corporation.

(3) Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan a Chartered Accountant' and General Manager, the Co‑operative Insurance Society of Pakistan Ltd. He stated that appellant No. 1 has been Director from July 1965 to 1969 and Senior Vice‑President of the Society from March 1969 to January 1981 of the Co‑operative Insurance Society of Pakistan.

(4) Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, Secretary Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industries. He stated that appellant No. I is elected President of the Chamber for year 1984‑85 and "he has also been elected as President of the Chamber on several years."

(5) Mr. Iqbal Saeed, Chairman, State Cement Corporation. He stated about his contacts with appellant No. 1 in diverse official capacities.

(6) Sh Ishrat Ali Adviser to the President of Pakistan for Internal Trade and Business Co‑ordination, Government of Pakistan from 9th March, 1981 to 25th February, 1985. He stated that he had known Appellant No. 1 for 16 years and had official contact with him concerning various organizations.

(7) Mr. Hamid Ahmed, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, former General Manager, Rural Supply Co‑operative Corporation. He stated that Appellant No. 1 had served and was serving various Co‑operative Organizations i.e. (a) Mercantile Co‑operative Finance Corporation Ltd. (b) Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd. and (e) National Co‑operative Union in various top level capacities.

In the additional sheet attached to ‑ the nomination paper, the appellant No. 1 supplied the following particulars :‑

Sheikh Ihsanul Haq Piracha.

Positions held:

President :

Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (1973‑74, 1974 75, 1979‑80, 1980‑81, 1983‑84 and 1984‑85).

: Ferozsons Laboratories Limited (Multi‑divisioned Public Limited Manufacturing Co.)

Chairman:

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi.

: Exhibition Committee. Islamabad, which organized the 1^st National Industrial Exhibition. 1984 inaugurated by General Muhammad Zisul Haq, President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Another similar Exhibition is being arranged for April, 1985.

Managing:

Mercantile Co‑operative Finance Corporation Ltd., Sargodha

Director

: National Rural Supply Co‑operative Corporation Ltd., Lahore.

: Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Lahore.

: Pan Graphics Ltd., Islamabad (Printing and Publishing Co.)

: Ferozsons Maritime Corporation Ltd., Karachi (Clearing and Shipping Co.)

Member :

Managing Committee, Federation of Pakistan‑Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

: Federal Appellate Committee, Film Censor Board, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.

: Central Committee, International Co‑operative Alliance, Geneva (Switzerland).

: Income‑tax Advisory Committee, Rawalpindi.

: Port Council, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi.

Past. Sr.

: Co‑operative Insurance Society of Pakistan Ltd.

Vice -

President

Past Vice :

Municipal Committee, Bhera. Chairman

Past :

Punjab Provincial Assembly (1970‑77).

Member

: Was also appointed as Minister Incharge of Communications and Works in Punjab Provincial Cabinet till imposition of Martial Law.

: Senate, Punjab University.

Leader :

General Trade Delegation to R. O. Korea & Japan (1981).

Member :

Pakistan Delegation to Peoples Republic of China under Leadership of Mr. Ilahi Bakhsh Soomro, Federal Minister of Industries, Government of Pakistan (1984).

Represented

: I. C. A. at the 17th F. A. O. Regional Conference for Asia and Pacific held in Islamabad (1984).

Representative of ‑

: Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry ;

: on National Committee UNIDO.

: on Advisor Council of Export Guarantee Scheme.

Attended :

Stanford Research Institute Conference, Sydney 1970,

: EXPO 70. Japan, 1970.

: Various business tours of European, American and Arabian Countries.

: 26th Congress I. C. A: Paris, 1976. .

: I. C. I. F. ''Conference Ohio, U. S. A. 1978.

: I. C. A. Central Committee Meeting, Helsinki (1981)." Copenhagen (1979), Rome (1982) and Hamburg (1984).

The appellant No. 2 also appeared as his own witness and produced the following witnesses.‑‑

"(1) Dr. Amir Muhammad, Chairman. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council and Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Agriculture Research Division. He stated about the appellant No. 2 having been appointed as non‑official member of the Board of Governor of Pakistan Agricultural Research Council in July, 1983 for three years and of his deep and exemplary interest in farming.

(2) Mr. Jamil Nishtar, Chairman, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. He stated that the appellant No. 2 was‑known to him for last 25 years and happens to be related too him also. He was the exponent of Dehi Markaz, small scale Dairy farming and had served with distinction on the Board of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, the Agriculture University, Faisalabad and the Pakistan Research Council.

(3) Mr. Iqbal Saeed, Chairman, State Cement Corporation of Pakistan. He stated that appellant No. 2 was known to hurt for last tight years as a dedicated and experienced agriculturist serving on the Board of Directors of the Agricultural Development Bank.

(4) Mr. Aminullah Chaudhry, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department. He stated that appellant No. 2 had "worked extensively towards evolving an important strain "of Basmati rice" hat; organized his farm "along the lines of Dehi Markaz and "has published a hook entitled "Rural Problems and Solutions."

(5) Dr. Abdul Majid, Director‑General, Agriculture Rice. Research Institute. He had known the appellant No. 2 for last 16 year who is "one of the most leading rice growers of the country a whose scientific farming has been appreciated and recognized only at home but also by foreign experts who have been visit his farm". He has also published a book entitled "Rural Problems and Solutions". His contribution in evolving superior Basmati rice and establishing Dehi Markaz was also well appreciated.

(6) Dr. Haleemul Husnain, Member Animal Sciences Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. He stated to have come into contact with appellant No. 2 while he himself was holding the post of Managing Director of Punjab Livestock Dairy and Poultry at Development Board and the appellant No. 2 was on its Board of Directors.

(7) Brig. Ijaz Hussain, Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore. He claimed to have known the appellant No. 2 for the last 25 years, also as "an author of several articles on Livestock and Dairy Development.

The Biodata appended with the nomination papa contained a owing particulars of Appellant No. 2 :‑

"Btodata of Syed Mukhtar Hussain:

Name

: Syed Mukhtar Hussain.

Father's

Name:

Late Syed Ashiq Hussain.

Born

: Village Shergarh, District Sahiwal, January, 1925.

Education :

Aitchison College, Lahore 1933‑40 Senior Cambridge from Aitchison College, Lahore.

Awarded :

Rivaz Gold Medal for the best Leaving boy (Academics an Sports). College Blazer for the Best Sportsman.

Graduation :

Government College, Lahore, B. A. 1941‑43.

Captain of Hockey‑Athletics and Swimming teams.

Awarded Roll of Honour for Sports.

Punjab University Colours in Hockey‑Athletics and Swimming teams.

Care:

Joined Army in 1943.

Commissioned from I. M. A. Dehradun in 1944.

Served in Infantry, 8 Punjab Regiment, Baluch Regiment.

Burma Front.

Instructor P. M. A. Kakul 1949‑51.

Advance Army Intelligence Course Uckfield‑England.

Instructor Army Intelligence Cliffden Murree in 1952‑55.

Military Secretary to Governor of Punjab (later West Pakistan) 1955‑62.

Awarded T. Q. A. 1957.

Retired prematurely in 1962 as Lt.‑Col. Due to father s death.

Practical Faring :

Settled on ancestral Farms‑Kot Mubarak, Hafizabad and Shergarh,

1962.

Family Farm 250 Acres, Own 50 Acres:

Started Dehi Markaz at Kot Mubarik 1963.

Integrated all agricultural Services and linked these with marketing and processing by installing a Farmers' Rice Mill at the Dehi Markaz.

Started supervised Agriculture Credit Introduced Agro‑based industry of milk chilling and rice husking.

Completed a 40‑bed hospital and Eye Operation Theatre in 1963. Free medical aid and eye operations are performed at the hospital.

All agricultural inputs, seed fertilizers, pesticides, credit‑soil analysis veterinary aid, A. I. extension, agricultural machinery on hire, diesels ; and tractor repair‑maintenance are provided in a package at the Dehi Markaz since 1963.

Offered the Dehi Markaz scheme to the Government in 1965 for adoption which has been adopted by the Government. Re claimed 100 % salt infested farm at Kot Mubarik and converted it into a model farm for the farming community.

Became the leading rice grower of the country. Colonel Basmati, the best aromatic rice of the country, was propagated at the Farm and introduced throughout the country in 1907 ; presently ‑it is a world re-known variety.

On quite a few occasions the Farm was adjudged the highest average yielder for rice, wheat and sugarcane.

Articles on Agriculture

: Apart from providing a lead to the farming community in a Agripractical farming, have shared practical experiences through the press media by contributing over 100 articles in Farmer‑'s Corner the Pakistan Times since 1965 :‑‑

"Surplus Wheat Production Strategy".

"Industry of the Landless".

"Why Import Wheat".

"Food Self‑Reliance".

"De‑Urbanization".

"Plea For Dehi Markaz".

are the current articles which have been acclaimed by National and International circles.

Author of "Rural Problems and Solutions" (Compilation of all the article adopted by world flask anal F. A. O. for agricultural development and planning in developing countries.

Non

: From 1962‑1985.

Official Assignments :

Was Non‑official Director of Agricultural Development Bank of

Pakistan. Member of Federal Irrigation Advisory Council.

Member State Bank Agricultural Credit Advisory Committee.

Member of Federal I. R. D. P. Advisory Council.

Was Syndicate and Senate Member of Agriculture University Faisalabad.

Director of Economic Research Council Punjab.

Director of Livestock Board Punjab.

Member National Planning Advisory Group.

Member of Majlis‑e‑Shoora.

Also Member :‑‑

Federal Seed Council.

Federal Dairy Development Board.

Punjab Livestock Board.

Provincial Seed Council.

Member Governing Body Div. Public School, Lahore.

Founder Member Director, Agr: Dev: Corpn.

Travelling:

Visited Europe in 1952.

Visited Middle East and Europe in 1962.

Visited Middle East and Europe in 1978‑79.

Performed 'Haj' in 1980."

Certain preliminary objections, some of a technical nature, were taken by the appellants before the election Tribunal and some of them have been repeated before us too. The first was that as the appellants were not declared by notification to be the returned candidates to the Senate against the reserved seats, the Election Petition itself was premature and incompetent. The second was that a single election petition could not be riled against both the appellants. Separate election petitions should have been filed against each. The third was that the respondent No. 1 not having objected before the Returning Officer to the eligibility or want of qualification of the appellants and having participated in the elections was estopped from filing an Election petition. The fourth was that the respondent having not led any evidence whatsoever not even himself appearing as his witness, was not entitled to succeed as the onus of the issue was entirely on him which in the absence of evidence remained un-discharged. The fifth was that the requirement of law (Articles 59 and 62 of the Constitution and Articles 5(1) and 10 of Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Election) Order, 1977) was of that the candidate contesting election should himself belong to a class (of Ulema, profes sionals or technocratrs) but that he should represent the specified lass without himself necessarily belonging to such a class. So no such test need be satisfied by the appellants.

Soon after the Election petition of respondent No. 1 was entrusted to the Tribunal on 17‑3‑1985 for trial under section 37(2) of the Act at came up for hearing before the Tribunal in presence of the parties and their counsel, as there was a prayer that "the notification of the result of the election as regards respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be stayed meanwhile". The following record of proceedings taken on 19‑1‑1985 is to be taken note of :‑‑

"The petitioner has stated that he does not wish to. file any other document except the one which he has filed with to petition and entirely relies on the nomination papers filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whose certified copies have been produced today and on my direction the originals have also been produced by the Deputy Election Commissioner which have been taken on record with the consent of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2."

After 'noting that the notices for hearing for that date had been properly served the election Tribunal dealt with in following terms the objection that the election petition was premature as the result of the election had not been notified :‑

"A close scrutiny of sections 24, 25 and 34 read with rules 26(2) and 30 makes it clear that on completion of the count the candidate who emerges successful is deemed to be elected and the announce ment of the result through notification in the Gazette is merely a formality. The learned counsel has relied on P L D 1962 Lab. 421, which is a judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan and a judgment of the Chief Election Commissioner reported in P L D 1974 Tribunal 307, in which the same view has been taken. It, therefore, follows that once the count is complete, the party aggrieved by this result becomes entitled to file an election petition but the period of limitation is to be counted from the date of the notification in the official Gazette. A person can file a petition even before the announcement of the result in the official Gazette but in no case it can be filed after, the expiry of 45 days from the date of the notification. Therefore, in view of this legal position the petition is not premature."

Another preliminary objection with regard to the competence of the election petition on the ground of estoppel was disposed of as follows :‑

"If law provides for challenging the election on such ground without qualifying it by any pre‑condition, it has to be given effect to. In my view, the petitioner's failure to raise objection at the time of filing nomination paper does not debar him from filing the petition on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not qualified on the nomination day from being elected as a member."

The Election Tribunal thereafter came to the conclusion that "it will not be possible to give any conclusive finding on the first prayer of the petitioner" therefore, necessarily the second prayer was considered. It took the view that prima facie the provision of law (Article 5(1) (a) (iv) of the Order) had to be strictly construed, a technocrat had to be a professional also, and the appellants did not appear to be either professional or a Technocrat. Hence the interim relief was granted.

After settling the issues and recording of the evidence, the matter came up for decision on merits. The Tribunal noted the objection that as respondent No. 1 had not entered the witness‑box, had led no evidence in spite of the fact that the onus of the issue was on him, his petition should be dismissed forthwith and dealt with it as follows,:‑‑

"In view of the stand taken by the petitioner, if at all the petitioner had stepped into the witness‑box and/or had called witnesses in support of this petition they would have only given evidence to the effect that on the basis of the particulars given in the nomination forms and the biodata attached thereto, the two respondents do not fall within the definition of "technocrat", and for this no evidence was required to be adduced. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not obliged, in the circumstances: to lead any evidence but as they desired to call certain witnesses in support of their case that they are technocrats, evidence of all such witnesses was recorded by this Tribunal."

An effort was made to reiterate the objection based on the ground of estoppel but it was met by holding as hereunder :‑‑

"The preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present election petition has, therefore, been finally decided by, the order, dated 19‑3‑1985. An attempt has been made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to argue that this part of the order, dated 19‑3‑1985 was not a final decision on this point. I do not agree. The question of maintainability of this election petition on the ground of estoppel has been finally decided by the order, dated 19‑3‑1985."

Another objection that the elected candidate need not belong to a specified class but should only represent it was repelled on the following grounds‑

"If the contention of learned counsel were accepted, it would render the entire definition clause redundant. The purpose of defining the words "aalim", "technocrat" and "professional" was that the candidate aspiring for such special seat must himself fall within one such category."

The objection that the qualifications prescribed (Article 5(1) (a) (iv) of the Order) offended against the provisions of Article 59 and Article 62 of the Constitution and hence were ultra vires was rejected by the Election Tribunal for reasons given as hereunder :‑

"In my view, in this election petition, no provision of the Order 1977 can be declared as ultra vires of any article of the Constitution. I also do not find any conflict between Article 5(1)(a)(iv) and the Explanation to this clause containing definitions of aalim, technocrat and professional. Article 5(1)(a)(iv) lays down that 5 senators shall be elected by the members of each Provincial Assembly to represent ulema, technocrats and other professionals and the Explanation defines as to who are ulema, technocrats and pro fessionals. The "Explanation" is in effect the definition clause and is not be treated as subsidiary to any other part of Article 5."

On the merits of the case the learned Election Tribunal rejected the contention of the respondent No. 1 that use of the expression "other professionals" in the opening clause and "professional" competence in the definition of Technocrat should be given effect by incorporating additionally to what is contained in the definition of technocrat the requirements of what is contained in the definition of professional as well. The Tribunal held as follows :‑

"The contention that a "technocrat" must be a professional" as defined in the Explanation to Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 has not appealed to me. If that were so, there would have been hardly any need for creating separate category of "technocrats". The three types of experts, i.e. "aalim" technocrat" and professional" have been separately defined and each definition is complete. The word "professional" used in the definition of "technocrat", therefore, does not in its meaning include all the ingredients enumerated in the definition of "professional." The contention that "technocrat" must also be a "professional" is accordingly not accepted."

The test of national or international recognition was laid down by the Election Tribunal in the following words :‑

"Such recognition is a formal or official act by a university, seat of learning or professional body and I would add to these bodies the Government."

The requirement of 15 years experience and expertise at a high level for administering or managing an operational or policy‑making unit was interpreted in the following words :‑‑

"In my view "high level" has reference to experience and expertise and not to operational or policy‑making unit. The words used are that the candidate must have 15 years' experience and expertise of administering or managing a high level unit. The policy making unit or operational unit need not be a big or large organization as the law does not require it to be so. It can be any medium or small sized unit also. What is required is that it must be a policy making unit i.e. where policy decisions are taken, or an operational unit for example any factory, manufacturing or assembling unit."

Taking up individually the cases of the two appellants it was held in respect of appellant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) before the Tribunal that .

"In my view in one of the positions held by respondent No. 1 tanta mount to his being recognized nationally or internationally as a person with professional competence in the fields of management, administration and policy‑making. The positions held by him show him to be a well‑known businessman. There is no act of recogni tion of his professional competence in these fields by any University, seat of learning, professional body or institute, Government or any international body or forum."

and further that‑

"As regards managing or administering at a high level a policy‑making or operational unit, it is an admitted position that respondent No. 1 had been Senior Vice‑President and then President and Chief Executive of Ferozsons Laboratories Limited for over 15 years and his evidence shows that he had been controlling the entire show taking all policy decisions and managing and administering the company. This satisfies the last condition in the definition of technocrat."

and the conclusion reached was‑

"As the material on record proves that professional competence of respondent No. 1 in the fields of management, administration and policy‑making was not nationally or internationally recognized, respondent No. 1 is not a technocrat. His election to the special seat for ulema, technocrat and professional is liable to be set aside."

As regards appellant No. 2 (respondent No, 1 before Election Tribunal) it was held that‑

"With reluctance I have to hold that respondent No. 2 is not a "technocrat" as defined in the Explanation to Article 5 of the Houses of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977. He is operating his farm at Kot Mubarak. He has the requisite experience and expertise at a high level for administering on operational unit at Kot Mubarak. He may also be known in his area as a professionally competent agriculturist. I was also impressed by his contributions its the field of agriculture. But in my view there is no national or international recognition of his professional competence in the field of agriculture. He is, therefore, not a technocrat."

On these findings the election of the two appellants was set aside. Prayer for recounting was rejected.

The appellant No. 1 by his separate appeal contended that‑

"The learned Election Tribunal was in error in overlooking the following evidence which established that the appellant's profes sional competence in the fields of management, administration and policy‑making had in fact been nationally as well as internationally recognized:

(i) the appointment of the appellant as a Director and Vice‑President of the National Co‑operative Union of Pakistan, the highest national body of co‑operatives in Pakistan.

(ii) the appointment of the appellant as a Member of the Central Committee of the International Co‑operative Alliance and its Banking Committee.

(iii) Member of :

Permanent National Committee of UNIDO (United Nations International Development Organisation) in Pakistan.

Pakistan Standard Institute (Chemical Division), Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan.

Export Promotion Council a policy‑making body of the Govern ment.

Advisory Council for Finance, a highest policy‑making body for fiscal and monetary policies of the Government.

Advisory Council for Imports‑a policy‑making body of the Government.

Management Association of Pakistan.

Managing Committee of Federation of Pakistan, Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the years 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980 to 1984‑85.

Federation of Pakistan, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Delegation for Seminar on Economic Co‑operation among South East Asian Countries held in New Delhi in April, 1983, as approved by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Official Trade Delegation to the Peoples Republic of China.

Federation of Pakistan, Chamber of Commerce and Industry proposed delegation to India on the occasion of Indian Trade hair on the invitation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

(iv) President/Chairman/Managing Director/Director:

President Ferozsons Laboratories Ltd., a multi‑division public limited company.

Chairman, National Insurance Company Ltd.

Managing Director, Mercantile Co‑operative Finance Corporation Ltd.

Sr. Vice‑President and Director, Co‑operative Insurance Society of Pakistan Limited.

Director, National Supply Co‑operative Corporation Limited. Director, Punjab Provincial Co‑operative Union of Pakistan. President, Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry for the years 1973‑74, 1974‑75, 1979‑80, 1980‑81, 1983‑84 and 1984 and 1985.

(v) Advisor :

Industrial Advisory Committee.

Income‑tax Advisory Committee.

Advisory Committee, Labour Welfare, Punjab.

Advisory Committee, National Savings.

Port Council, Karachi Port Trust.

Central Committee, Insurance Association of Pakistan.

Board of Governors of the Pakistan Manpower Institute.

All above institutions constituted by Federal or Provincial Governments.

(vi) Special Invitation/Delegation.

Specially invited by General Ziaul Haq, President ‑of Pakistan to attend the meeting of the Federal Export Promotion Board.

The appellant attended the following International Conferences‑:

Stanford Research Institute Conference, Sydney, Australia (1970).

26th Congress, International Co‑operative Alliance, Paris (1976).

ICIF Conference, Ohio, U. S. A. (1978).

I. C. A. Central Committee Meeting, Copenhagen (1979).

I. C. A. Central Committee Meeting, Helsinki (1981).

I. C. A. Central Committee Meeting, Rome (1982).

I. C. A. Conference, Humburg (1984)."

The appellant No. 2 in his appeal ‑has made a grievance of the fact that oral evidence of eminent expert witnesses should not have been brushed aside. He stated that:-

"The petitioner produced witnesses like Dr. Amir Muhammad Khan, R. W. 9, former Advisor to the President. of Pakistan, presently Chairman, Pakistan Research Council (Research Division), Islamabad besides Mr. Tamil Nishtar, Chairman, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan; Mr. Amin Ullah Chaudhry, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department; Mr. Iqbal Saeed, former Chairman, Agricultural, Development Bank of Pakistan ; Dr. Halim‑ul‑Hasnain, Member Animal Science P. A. R. C. Dr. Abdul Majid, Director‑General, Rice Research Institute, Kala Shah Kaku and Brig. Ejaz Hussain, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Livestock Department, who have deposed about the recognition of the professional competence of the petitioner, which proves that he was nationally and internationally known as an expert in the Science of Agriculture ; particularly so when there is no rebuttal to this evidence."

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate representing appellant No. 2 has taken 'tip the two preliminary objections to the very competence of the Election petition which were also taken up by him before the Election Tribunal and stand rejected. The first is that having raised no such objection of want of qualification, before the Returning Officer, the respon dent No. 1 was estopped from raising it by an election petition. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ch. Muhammad Hussain v. Election Tribunal (1982 S C M R 307). the second is that as there was no affirmative evidence led by respondent No. 1 and none in rebuttal either and the onus of the issue was on him, the election petition should have been dismissed for want of evidence, for absence of required proof and for failure of the respondent No. 1 to discharge the onus without further discussing the evidence of the appellant No. 2.

So far as the first preliminary objection is concerned, we agree with the Election Tribunal that as the more compendious statutory remedy of an Election petition is not qualified or controlled by an exercise of a prior right of objection before the Returning Officer to be dealt with summarily under section 13 of the Act no such restriction or limitation can be imported by reference to principles of estoppel. The decision referred to is irrelevant for it deals not with principle of estoppel but with the irrefutability, both before the Returning Officer and before the Election Tribunal, of an entry existing for the time being in the electoral roll, in the absence of any challenge on the ground of want of statutory qualification.

It is not correct to contend that the respondent No. 1 led no evidences in support of his claim because the proceedings before the Tribunal on 19‑3‑1985, the record of which has been reproduced above shows that he relied on the document filed 'with the petition and the nomination papers filed by the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellant consented to these being brought on record. This formed the evidence for the respondent No. 1. The weight and effect of such evidence can be a matter of‑argument but in its presence it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 led absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that after holding that outstanding professional academic qualification was nut statutorily required of a technocrat, unlike a profes sional the learned Election Tribunal has adopted a somewhat rigid and narrow yardstick for adjudging professional competence of a technocrat and the form in which its national or international recognition must come about. The respondent No. 1, and the learned counsel addressing arguments on behalf of respondents Nos. 9 and 10 have canvassed for a stricter and a narrower meaning of a professional and a technocrat so as to maintain the historical continuity in its juristic definition and judicial interpretation, to lend certainty and ready ascertainability of its meaning and applicability by a Returning Officer even in summary proceed ings directed towards resolving objections for want of qualification of a candidate. Reliance has been placed on the accepted extensions in the meaning of professional and technocrat, the judicial interpretations as contained in Robbin Herbal Institute v. Federal Commissioner of Taxes ((1923) 32 C L R 457), Asher v. London Film Productions ((1944) 1 K B 133) and N. E. Merchant and another v. State (A I R 1968 Bom. 283). Reliance has also been placed on the use of word profession in Art. 18 of the Constitution to distinguish it from occupation trade or business, and on entry No. 43 Concurrent Legislative List Fourth Schedule of the Constitution to restrict it to legal, medical and such other professions about which laws have been framed e. g. (i) Cost and Industrial Accountants (Act XIV of 1966), (ii) Nursing (Act LIX of 1952) ; (iii) Unani Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioner (Act II of 1965) etc. etc. The recognition, national or international has also according to the learned counsel, a stricter meaning than given by the Election Tribunal. According to them the Government's recognition as such is no recognition unless it is in one of the recognised forms e. g. Pride of Performance (nationally) and Nobel Prize (Internationally) and in any case it must be confined to professional attainments.

The specific provisions of the law requiring scrutiny, understanding and interpretation is section 5, subsection (1), clause (u), sub‑clause (iv) of the Order. It is reproduced hereunder :‑

"5. The Senate.‑(1) As provided in Article 59 of the Constitution‑

(a) The Senate shall consist of eighty‑seven members, of whom

(i) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(ii) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(iii) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(iv) five shall be elected by the members of each Provincial Assembly to represent ulema, technocrats and other professionals:

(b) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(a) ... ... ... ... .

(i) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(ii) ... ... ... ... ... ...

(iii) ... ... ... ... ... ...

Explanation. In this clause :‑

(a) Aalim' means a Muslim scholar with high qualifications in religious education recognised by the University Grants Commission or having specialized knowledge of Tafseer, Hadith, and Fiqh, to his credit and engaged for at least fifteen years in dissemination of these subjects either as an Imam in a Jamia Mosque or as a teacher or researcher in an educational or research institution or as a practi tioner in Islamic Law ;

(b) technocrat' means a person of nationally or internationally recognised professional competence with and at least fifteen years' experience and expertise at a high level for administering or managing an operational or policy‑making unit ; and

(c) professional' means a person of distinction' with nationally or internationally recognised professional qualifications and practical experience at a high level in a specialized area of knowledge who has been practising to his specialisation by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment."

The opening clause "five" shall be elected by the members of each Provincial Assembly to represent Ulema, technocrats and other professional has been lifted from Article 59, sub‑Article (1), clause (d) of the Constitu tion. The contention of the respondents that the use of the words "and other" between "technocrat" and "professionals" establishes a link, an identity or a similarity and the technocrat has also be a professional of a sort appears to be correct. This is so because of the meaning of these two words "and other". In Black's Dictionary (Fifth Edition) they have been defined as follows :‑

and = A conjunction connecting words or phrases expressing the idea that the latter is to be added to or taken alongwith the first.

other = Different or distinct from that already mentioned; additional or further. Following an enumeration of particular classes other must be read as "other such like and includes only others of like kind and character.

As the words professional and technocrat have both been separately defined, the definition being, according to its language, hard and fast it is ordinarily to be taken as exhaustive of the meaning. A difficulty however comes to the surface because in defining the word professional itself the word professional has been used with the word qualification. Used as an adjective governing the word qualification its connotation is not coextensive with the noun professional. It is, therefore, clear that howsoever slight may be the difference in its meaning in its cognate form the word has beet given a different meaning. This appears to be true of the definition of technocrat also where too the word professional has been used as an adjective qualifying this time competence. If the use of this word with competence brings in the whole definition of professional contained in explanation (c) in addition to whit is already provided for in the definition of technocrat then an incongruity crops up The stance of the respondents is that technocrat is professional with a distinction that he should not be practising in his specialization by adopting it as his principal calling, vocation or employment. In every other respect he must satisfy the definition of a professional. This interpretation follows no particular principle. If the use of word professional with competence brings to the whole definition of professional then there is no method of truncat ing or limiting it ; so as to exclude a portion of it. In any case even this view recognizes the difference in the use and scope of the meaning or the same word professional. The subject, the context and the purpose are all suggestive of the fact that the word professional has two distinct meanings, the one given in explanation (c) and the other governing the words qualification, competence and technocrat as such. It has beer said that to define a word by using the word defined offends against a canons of interpretation (Bindra 6th ed. p. 45). Such a duality in the use and consequently in the meaning also, arose in the case of Madura Sree Menakvhi Devasthanom v. Madura Municipal Council (A I R 1928 Mad. 569) and it was resolved by giving two different meanings to the same word used in the interpretation clause.

Coming now to the popular meaning of the word profession, it has been defined as follows :‑

"Vocation or calling esp. one that involves some branch of advanced learning of science" (Oxford Concise Dictionary).

"An employment not mechanical and requiring some degree of learning: Calling, habitual employment" (Chamber's Twentieth Century Dic tionary).

"1. The occupation which one professes to be skilled in and to follow : A vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of learning is used in its application to the affairs of others, or in the practice of an art founded on it. In wider sense any calling' or occupation by which a person habitually earns his living" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).

Black's definition is as follows :‑

"A vocation or occupation requiring special, usually advanced educa tion and skill". The labour and skill involved in a profession is a predominantly mental or intellectual, rather than physical or manual.

The term originally contemplated only theology, law and medicine but as applications of science and learning are extended to other departments of affairs, other vocations also receive the name, which implies professed attainments in special knowledge as distinguished from mere skill."

Corpus Juris Secondum (Vol. 72, page 1215) introduces the concept of profession by indicating as follows :‑

"It has been said it is difficult if not impossible to lay down any strict legal definition of the word profession and that the term may, perhaps, be best understood by mention of some prominent or characteristic elements, rather than by an attempted complete definition. The word is vague and neither static nor rigid, and is used in many different senses, and in one sense it means a public declaration respecting something, and in a somewhat different sense it means that of which one professes knowledge. However, the word profession' is more commonly employed in the sense of voca tion, business, calling, or occupation, and it is in this sense that the term is treated in the following paragraphs."

The discussion proceeds to the following end :‑

"In modern usage, and in a restricted sense, the word profession' is still sometimes specifically applied only to the learned professions and to the persons engaged therein. However, the tendency has been to enlarge and extend the scope and meaning of the term, and this has resulted in the word becoming more elastic and its denota tion more liberalised so that it has long ceased to be connected only with, and restricted exclusively to, the so‑called learned professions. The word "profession" now has a broader and more comprehensive meaning than formerly was accorded to it, and its signification now extends far beyond the well‑known classical professions of earlier days, and as the applications of science and learning are extended to other departments of affairs, other vocations also receive the name,"

President Order No. 25 of 1985 accords statutory recognition to Management Sciences. It has not been defined in the statute. The Encyclopadea Brittanica (15th Edition, Vol. VI) contains the following description of it :‑‑

"The term often used in the plural has come to include any applica tion of science either to the study of management itself as a process, thus encompassing operations research, systems analysis, and manage ment‑information systems.

Although management science could include the study of all activities of groups that entail a managerial function, it generally entails the following (1) discovering, developing, defining and evaluating the goals of tine organization and the alternative policies that will lead towards the goals, (2) getting tic organization to adopt the policies (3) scrutinizing the effectiveness of the policies that are adopted and (4) initiating steps to change policies that are ineffective or inadequately effective. Management science often has drawn its concepts and methods from the older disciplines of economics, business administration, psychology, sociology and mathematics.

This statute accords to what would otherwise be an aspect of business, individual or corporate, the status of a science, a subject of systematic organized advanced study. To that extent even business has been brought within the stricter definition of profession.

The case‑law on the subject presents an equally varied shades of meaning. In the case of Robbins Herbal Institute the extensive definition provided in the war time Profits Tax Assessment Act, 1917‑18 controlled the interpretation as stated hereunder :

"The Wartime Profits Tax Assessment Act, 1917‑1918 levied a tax upon all wartime profits from all business (which includes, by the interpretation of the word business' in section 4, all professions and trades) of every description deriving profits from sources within Australia, excepting, so far as is material to this case, any profession the profits of which depend mainly on the personal qualifications of the person by whom it is carried on, and in which comparatively little or no capital expenditure is required."

The appellant Robbins was claiming exemption from tax on the ground that profits depended mainly on "the personal qualifications of the person by whom it is carried on, and in which comparatively little or no capital expenditure is required". The Court after holding that the ques tion whether a person in any given case carries on a profession is a question of degree and always of fact held that Robbins possessed no formal qualification and be had failed to show that his enterprise required little or no capital expenditure. This decision could be of immense value for understanding the concept of professional qualification as is required in Explanation (c). It is, however, irrelevant for interpreting or under standing the phrase professional competence and expertise, with which we are concerned within explanation (b).

Asher's case has been cited mare for the purposes of demonstrating that the functioning as Managing Director is not a profession at all, than for ascertaining the scope of the meaning of the word profession. In that case a contract between the parties existed under which the assessee was employed as production Executive for two years. This contract was by mutual agreement subsequently cancelled with compensa tion quantified for the assessee employee. The question arose whether the amounts receivable as compensation was taxable as income from a profession or as income of another type admitting that income it was the Court held. I have yet to learn that a Manager or a Managing Director is carrying on a profession or vocation contracts of that kind are, I should have thought mere contracts of employment and nothing else". It will be seen that the decision proceeded on the definition of profession or vocation contained in the Tax Laws. If we have to ascertain the ordinary, plain meaning cat a word we don't go to statutes defining that very word. If that were permissible then Explanation (c) solves the controversy. The ordinary plain meaning of a word wheresoever required to be ascertained has to be gathered from outside the statutory definitions which serve the needs of those statutes.

Merchant's case from Bombay was a criminal trial for failure to get Shop and Establishment Registration Certificate renewed. The office was of a Chartered Accountant with three articled clerks and one salaried clerk. It was held to be not a shop, establishment etc. The definition of estab lish vent was descriptive and enumerative. The question examined was, whether Chartered Accountant's establishment was a commercial establishment. It was held that it was not. The definition controlled the interpretation. It cannot be urged on the strength of that decision that all professional activity is non‑commercial or that no commercial activity can be professional or lead to professional competence as such.

It follows from the above discussion that where profession or professional has been defined, that definition fully governs the situation. Where it does not, and resort has to be had to its ordinary plain meaning then it should be borne in mind that it is "vague and neither static not rigid in what it conveys. Having found a place in the Constitution itself it is necessary that it should retain its flexibility and adaptability. The scheme of the Explan ation under consideration appears to be to emphasize in Explanation (c) professional qualification, its recognition and experience in a specialized area of knowledge, and practice in that particular specialization. In contra distinction to it there is no mention of qualification in Explanation (b). It talks of professional competence and experience and expertise for administering or managing a unit. Expert has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "one who is knowledgeable in specialized field that knowledge being obtained from either education or personal experience ..... one who by habits of life and business has particular skill in forming, opinion on subject in dispute". Experience and expertise and absence of use of the word qualification in Explanation (b) emphasizes the practical side rather than the academic. We therefore, agree with the finding that "a person without professional qualification but who is otherwise profes sionally competent, which professional competence is nationally or inter nationally recognized, can become a "technocrat" if he fulfils the other conditions in the definition of technocrat.

The word Recognized' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "Actual and publicly known". The national or international recognition of professional competence of an individual may come about in various, forms direct and indirect. Instances of direct recognition have been noted by the Election Tribunal in the words that follows :‑

"Recognition is a formal or official act by a university, seat of learning or professional body and I would add to these bodies the Govern ment."

Undoubtedly, instances of direct recognition noted by the Election Tribunal will certainly ex facie establish the competence of the individual. There, however, appears no particular reason to restrict the recognition only to such direct and formal acts. The indirect recognition at the national level may come about in diverse forms‑in associating the pro fessionally competent individuals in framing of the policies at the national level, in administering institutions and projects and in representation abroad in a particular speciality.

The "high level" should not be restricted to the highest level because it implies a level lower than the highest and higher than the intermediate. The degree of independence and the absence of accountability are tests extraneous to the requirement. We would, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Election Tribunal that "high level has reference to experience and expertise" and it need not be in the capacity of "head of ministries, statutory corporations" etc.

Keeping in view these tests we have to examine the bio data of the appellant as projected at the time of nomination, as it is an admitted piece of evidence. As President/Chairman/Managing Director of Public Limited Companies duly incorporated at the national level, his experience and expertise at a high level for the required number of years is established. He represented from Pakistan the International Co‑operative Alliance and attended its Central Committee Meetings at Helsinki (1981), Copen Hagen (1979) Kome (1982) Hamburg (1984). The information about I. C. A. has been supplemented at the hearing by brochures showing that it was founded in 1895 in London "as an association of national unions of cooperative societies". In the work and meetings of the United Nations its Economic and Social Council as well as some of the specialized Agencies, it enjoys the right of participation as an International Organisation with consultative status category 1" one of the objectives of this association is the "professionalisation of management". If the appellant No. 1 has been able to actively generate such an activity within the nation leading to the formation of national union and has got it affiliated with the Inter national Body and has been representing it on the Central Committee of I. C. A., it would be against facts to deny him national or international recognition in this field. The same bio data shows that he represented Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry on the National Committee of UNIDO. Representation to an International body from a specialized national body ordinarily amounts to national recognition, in that specialized field. The benefit of such attainments should have been extended to appellant No. 1.

The bio data of appellant No. 2 shows that he settled to farming in 1962. His farming was not confined to just the manual work. He introduc ed ideas, systems, and methods into it without himself possessing any academic qualification as such in that specialty, while the laboratory work was entirely done at the Rice Research Institute the extension experimental work was done in collaboration with him and on his farm. The oral evidence of the experts and agricultural Scientist proves such a fruitful collaboration and the emergence of a new variety of rice, locally named after him. He was the sole representative of the Seed Growers of Punjab on the National Seed Council established under section 3 of Seed Act, 1976 (XXIX of 1976). The object of this Council is to control and regulate the quality of seeds of varieties of crops and matters connected therewith. He was a member of Federal Dairy Development Board as the sole representative of dairy farmers of Punjab. He has also been a non‑official member of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (Ordinance No. XXXIII of 1981). He has been a member of the Syndicate and Senate of the Agriculture University, Faisalabad. Such representation does indirectly amount to national recognition of his competence and standing.

As regards the level at which the appellant No. 2 has been operating undeniably it appears to be at a high level. The collaboration with the Rice Research Institute and membership of the statutory bodies referred to all show that his participation was at a high level, concerned with the determination of the standards and policies, and their implementation throughout the nation.

On the facts found established and on the view of the law taken by us the two appellants suffer from no infirmity of qualification for being elected to the seats reserved for the technocrats in the Senate. We accept both the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Election Tribunal and dismiss the Election Petition filed by respondent No. 1. There is no order as to costs in view of the intricacy of the law point involved and the case being the first under the new law.

M. B. A. Appeals accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer