P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑By this petition under Article 2 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, Manzur‑ul‑Haq seeks a writ which would result in making inoperative his removal from membership and chairmanship of a Basic Democracy. He pres ented another petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 383 of 1961, in which he prayed for a writ directing the Controlling Authority, Multan, to issue a notification about the petitioner's election as a member of the District Council, Montgomery. These two writ petitions are not only made by the same person but also raise questions which can be conveniently dealt with together and for that reason this order will cover both of them.

2. The material facts are these. The petitioner was elected a member of the Union Committee `B', Ward No. 4, City Montgomery, and was subsequently elected its Chairman. On being elected Chairman of the Union Committee, the petitioner automatically became an ex officio member of the Municipal Com mittee, Montgomery, because of the provisions contained in Article 12 (5) (b) of' the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. He was elected Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee on the 5th of June 1960 at an election held under section 11 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960) which was not contested by any other member of the Municipal Committee. The Deputy Commissioner of Montgomery sent the papers to the Commis sioner, Multan for issue of a notification because the Commissioner was the Controlling Authority for the purpose. The election of the petitioner as Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, was not g3zetted, nor was any notification issued by the Controlling Authority that the petitioner had become a member of the District Council, Montgemery, though a notifica tion regarding the petitioner having become a member of the District Council, Montgomery, had to follow as of course on his being chosen as the Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery. As the notifications were not issued for a very long time in spite of his protests to many a very high executive authority, the petitioner, on the 10th of June 1961, presented Writ Petition No. 383 of 1961 through Chaudhri Karam Elahi Chauhan, Advocate. As already mentioned, in that petition the petitioner prayed for issue of a writ which would result in his being notified in the Official Gazette as a member of the District Council, Montgomery, as well as Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery. Writ Petition No. 383 of 1961 came up for a preliminary hearing on the 20th of June 1961, and a notice was issued to the opposite‑parties for showing cause why it should not be accepted. On the 12th of August 1961, a notice issued by the Collector, Montgomery, was received by the petitioner wherein it was said that a meeting of the District Council, Montgomery, will be held on the 21st of August 196l to consider the removal of the petitioner from his membership of Union Committee 'B', his Chairmanship of that Committee and his membership of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery. This notice mentioned three charges which were to form the basis for removal. On the 21st of August 1961, a special meeting of the District Council, Montgomery, was convened under Article 25 (4) (c) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, and a resolution removing the petitioner from membership of the Union Committee `B' and its chairmanship was passed, whereupon he presented the present petition (Writ Petition No. 600 of 1961) to question the validity of that resolution.

3. In this writ petition, which ran into a dozen pages, a number of allegations were made, and the prayer was for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to declare invalid the notification issued by the Controlling Authority for Local Councils for Montgomery District other than the District Council, as well as declaring the recommendation of the District Council, Montgomery, regarding the removal of the petitioner to be invalid. A prayer was also made that a writ should be issued so that the petitioner may be treated as a member of Union Committee 'B' of Ward No. 4, Montgomery, the Chairman of that Union Committee as well as a member of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, and for the issue of a direction to the Controlling Authority for Local Councils and District Council Montgomery, not to stop the petitioner from exercising powers that he could do as a member and Chairman as detailed above. The written statements put in on behalf of the Chairman of the District Council, Montgomery, and the Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, are quite lengthy and in view of the fact that the writ petition was quite lengthy, the written statements could not have been very brief. The gist of the written statements was that the grounds on which the petitioner sought the issue of writs did not exist and no writ could issue.

4. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that as the petitioner had, on his election as Vice -Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, become an appointed member of the District Council, Montgomery, no order removing him from membership of any Basic Democracy or the Municipal Committee could be based on any resolution which did not result in the removal of the petitioner from membership of the District Council. In my view the contention is untenable, because the petitioner had not been gazetted as a member of the District Council, Montgomery, and even his election as Vice -Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, had not been gazetted. It appears to me clear that a person becomes a member of a Basic Democracy only from the date that his membership is gazetted. In the present case, no Gazette Notification relating to the petitioner having become the member of the District Council was issued, and it was with a view of having this notification issued in the Provincial Official Gazette that the petitioner had presented Writ Petition No. 383 of 1961 which too is being dealt with in this order. It is true that if the petitioner were a member of a District Council, his removal from membership of the District Council would be governed by rules different to those which govern the removal of members of Union Committees, but as the petitioner had not become a full‑fledged member of the District Council, Montgomery, he cannot claim to be governed by rules which are applicable to members of a District Council.

5. It was next contended by learned counsel for the peti tioner that some of the persons who met to consider whether or not the petitioner could be removed from membership of the Union Council were incompetent to take part in the meeting, The argument was that as sub‑clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, had not been amended while paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Order had been amended so as to make Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committees members of the District Council in place of Chairmen of such Committees, the persons who met to consider the removal of the petitioner were an illegally constituted body. In order to properly understand this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to have a clear picture of the provisions of law by reliance on which learned counsel wanted a verdict in his client's favour. Originally, paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, read as follows: ‑ "The Chairman of the Thana or Tehsil Councils, and of the Municipal bodies, and the Vice‑Presidents of the Cantonment Boards, in the District, and such representatives of depart ments as may be specified by the Government and appointed by the Commissioner, shall ex‑officio be the official members of the District Councils." An amendment was brought about in the above‑reproduced paragraph by means of the Basic Democracies (Amendment) Order, 1960, and the paragraph was to read as follows:‑ "The Chairmen of the Thana or Tehsil Councils, the Vice- Chairmen of the Municipal bodies, and the Vice‑Presidents of the Cantonment Boards, in the District, and such representa tives of departments as may be specified by the Government and appointed by the Commissioner, shall ex‑officio be the official members of the District Council." Clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, however, continued to stand as it was before the amendment of Article

15. This clause (c) reads as follows: "(4) An elected member of a Local Council shall not be removed from such membership unless, at a special meeting to be convened for the purpose in accordance with the rules made by competent authority, a resolution to the effect that he is liable to be removed under this Article is passed‑ * * * * * * * * * * * (c) In the case of a member who is the Chairman of a Union Council or a Town Committee, or of a Union Committee, and is ex‑officio a member of a Thana or Tehsil Council, or of a Municipal body or a Cantonment Road, by a majority of such members of the District Council concerned as are the Chairmen of the Union Councils, of the Town and Union Committees, and of the Municipal Bodies, in the District, and the Vice Presidents of the Cantonment Boards therein, and on the passing of such resolution, the member shall stand removed." The view expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner was that it was on account of an oversight that the Vice‑Chairmen of Municipal bodies were not substituted for Chairmen of such bodies in clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, because according to him the Chairmen of Municipal bodies having been replaced by Vice‑Chairmen of such Committees for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, a similar amendment in clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Order was unavoidable. Though this contention appears correct at first sight, it is clearly untenable. It cannot he denied that Municipal bodies continued to have Chairman even after the amendment of paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, and in view of this it cannot be said that the amendment brought about in para graph 2 of Article 14 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, made clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, meaningless. If the law‑maker wanted the Chairmen of Municipal bodies to have the right to attend meetings of District Council in which the question of removal of a Member of a Basic Democracy was to be considered, no change in clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 would be necessary in spite of the change in paragraph 2 of Article 15 of that Order. It follows, therefore, that clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, has to be acted upon as it has to be presumed that the law‑maker had expressed in words what his intention was.

6. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the reference by the Collector of the District to District Council was bad in law because it was made with regard to the petitioner's membership and Chairmanship of a Union Committee as well as his membership of a Municipal Committee, and under the law as it stood a reference with regard to the removal of a person from membership of a Municipal Committee could be made only by the Commissioner of the relevant Division and not by the Collector of the District. Learned counsel for the petitioner was right in saying that the question of the removal of the petitioner from membership of Municipal Committee, Montgo mery, was referred by the Collector, Montgomery, to the District Council; Montgomery but the point to consider is whether the reference with regard to the petitioner's removal from member ship and Chairmanship of the Union Committee became incompe tent by reason of the fact that the same reference also mentioned the petitioner's removal from membership of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery. The District Council, Montgomery, passed a resolution with regard only to the petitioner's membership, and Chairmanship of the Union Committee though the reference made to the District Council mentioned the petitioner's membership of the Municipal Committee as well. In view of this it cannot be held that the resolution of the District Council with regard to a matter which had been properly referred by the Collector was inoperative.

7. Learned counsel then urged that as the petitioner was a member of a Municipal Committee and his removal from the membership and Chairmanship of the Union Committee would automatically result in ‑his removal from membership of the Municipal Committee, the reference should have been made by the Commissioner of the Division and not by the Collector of the District. This contention receives no support from the language used in the law applicable to the case which is to the effect that if a person is removed from membership of any of the Basic Democracies he shall be deemed to have been removed from membership of all Basic Democracies as well as from member ship of Municipal Committees. That being the law, the question to consider is whether in the present case the reference should have been made by the Commissioner of the Division because the petitioner was a member of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery. A reference with regard to the removal of the petitioner from his membership of the Municipal Committee, Montgomery, could only be made if the petitioner had been believed to have been guilty of misconduct as a member of the Municipal Committee, and as no such allegation was made against him, one fails to see on what ground the petitioner could have been removed from his membership of the Municipal Committee If a reference had been made to the District Council with regard only to the petitioner's membership of the Municipal Committee. Under the law in force the result would no doubt be that the removal of the petitioner from membership of the Union Committee would automatically result in his losing the member ship of the Municipal Committee, but from that the inference cannot be drawn that the misconduct of a person in his capacity of a member of a Union Committee shall in the case of a person who had become a Chairman of that Union Committee, and by virtue of that office had become a member of a Municipal Committee, was his misconduct as a member of the Municipal Committee.

8. The last contention of the learned counsel for the that some of the persons who attended the meeting of the District Council at which a vote was passed against the petitioner were not qualified to attend the meeting. When the list was checked, however, it was found that the complaint of learned counsel for the petitioner had no basis, and that no one who should not have attended the relevant meeting of the District Council had attended the meeting and that notice had been sent to all persons who, under clause (c) of paragraph 4 of Article 25 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, were to meet to consider the question of the removal of the petitioner.

9. As none of the points raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has succeeded, Writ Petitions Nos. 383 of 1961 and 600 of 1961 cannot but be, and are hereby, dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, however, I would leave the parties to bear their own costs in both the petitions. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑I agree. A. H. Petition dismissed.