1983 PLP 2449 (CLC)

2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are that Rao Muhammad Yasin, petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Town Com- committee Makhdoompur Pehran on 26th November, 1980. The result was notified on 29th November, 1980. He took oath of his office on 10th December, 1980. It so happened that on 10th August, 1981, I1 Members of the Town Committee by written requisition signed by them required the convening of a special meeting of the Local Council to consider the mo tion of no-confidence against the petitioner. Accordingly, notices were issued for the convening of the meeting on 30th August, 1981. The notice was allegedly served upon the petitioner on 16th August, 1981. Before the meeting could be held, second notice was issued for convening the meeting on 7th September, 1981. This notice was allegedly served upon the peti tioner on 24th August, 1981. On 7th September, 1981 meeting to consider the no-confidence motion was held. Out of 15 Members of the Union Council, 11 Members supported the notion. The motion having thus, been passed by a 2/3 majority of the total number of the Members, it was declared that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was successful. Hence this, petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three points :- (i) That the Assistant Commissioner was not competent to preside over the meeting inasmuch as Makhdoompur Pehran being a Town Committee the meeting should have been presided by the Deputy Commissioner. (ii) That under section 31 (3) of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, motion of no-confidence was not competent as the same was not moved within six months plus 30 days of the date of the assumption of office, i. e. 10th December, 1980. (iii) That the meeting convened after 15 days of the receipt of requisition was violative of rule3- of Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice Rules,1980.

4. After hearing the learned counsel we find that the Assistant Commissioner being a nominee of the Deputy Commissioner was competent to preside over the meeting. The learned counsel when confronted with the situation has not. pressed point No. (i). As for point No. (ii), it would be convenient to reproduce section 31,13) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance which reads :-- "Section 31 (3) :--A motion of no confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of thirty days beyond every interval of six months provided under subsection (2), and in such a situation it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected for the purposes of sub section (2)." It is now well-settled that section 31 (2) and (3) do not apply to the first motion of no-confidence. Motion of no-confidence and the requisi tion for convening a meeting for moving a vote of no-confidence are two different stages of the meeting and as such the meeting which was convened after 7 months of the assumption of the office was not hit by the provisions of section 31 (2) and (3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance.,;. So far as point No. (iii) is concerned, we find that since there was no legal bar to issue a second notice for convening meeting to consider no confidence motion, the second notice having been issued to the petitioner on 24th August, 1981, the meeting which was held on 7th September 1981 was well within 15 days. We further find that this point was not taken in the petition. For these reasons, this point fails. The writ being pure a discretionary relief, the petitioner is not entitled to any assistance by this Court for the reasons that out of 15 Members, he has lost the confidence of his 11 constituents. Furthermore, the election of the Chairman Town Committee Makhdoompur Pehran was held on 6th October, 1981 in which one Nizam-ud-Dm has been elected as Chairman of the Town Committee. For what has been stated above, we are not inclined to exercise our constitutional discretion to interfere with the impugned order. This peti tion is dismissed with no order as to costs. K.M.A. Writ petition, dismissed.