P L D 1970 Dacca 589 (PLP)

B. A. SIDDIQI, C. J:‑-In this application the petitioner challenges the validity of a motion of no‑confidence that was passed against him on 19‑1‑1968 upon requisition of seven out of nine members of the Haizadi Union Council No.

9. The petitioner's case, in short is that seven members out of nine of the said Union Council submitted a requisition to him on 23‑12‑1967 asking for convening a special meeting of the said Union Council for consideration of the vote of no‑confidence against the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly called a meeting on the 4th January 1968. At the appointed hour only five out of nine members were present and no officer was present to preside over the meeting as, according to the rules, the Controlling Authority, upon receipt of the notice, is to nominate either the Circle Officer (Development) or any other officer to preside over such meeting. In these circumstances, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the petitioner himself in which a resolution was taken that no‑confidence motion has failed and thereafter confidence in the Chairman was reiterated by the five members present. Thereafter, it is stated, that the Control ling Authority convened a meeting for the 19th January 1968 for considering the motion of no‑confidence against the petitioner before us and in that meeting vote of no‑confidence was passed against the petitioner by seven out of the nine members of the Union Council. Thereafter the petitioner was given a notice to hand over charge of the office of the Chairman. The petitioner therefore came before this Court and obtained the present Rule. It is the case of the petitioner that the no‑confidence motion having failed due to the failure of the meeting on 4‑1‑1968, a second meeting on the same requisition within a period of one year could not be convened and held by the Controlling Authority. In the affidavit‑in‑opposition filed by the respondent No. 1, it is stated that the notice for convening the meeting on the 4th January 1968 by the Chairman himself sent to the Controlling Authority was received by him on 11‑11‑1968 and as such he could not authorise any officer to preside over the said meeting. In terms of Rule 4 of the East Pakistan Local Councils Vote of No‑Confidence) Rule, 1963, a special meeting for consideration of no‑confidence is to be presided over by the Circle Officer or any other officer nominated in that behalf by the Controlling Authority. In the present case the notice fixing the date of the meeting to be the 4th January 1968, having been received by the Controlling Authority on the 11th January 1968, he could not have directed the Circle Officer or authorised any other officer to preside such a meeting. As such he convened the meeting for 19th January 1968 as the first fortnight had already elapsed and within the second fortnight it was within the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority to convene the meeting. Further it is alleged in the affidavit‑in‑opposition that the Controlling Authority on 9‑1‑1968 received a representation from seven out of nine members of the Union Council that the Chairman in spite of receiving requisition for calling a special meeting on 23‑12‑1967 has not called the special meeting as required of him by rules. Since it is the case of the petitioner that he had convened the special meeting for the 4th January 1968, the onus is upon him to show that the meeting was actually so convened and notice for same was served to all concerned including the members of the Union Council. Nothing has been said in the petition and/or no evidence has been cited in the petition with regard to the service return of the notice for the special meeting convened by the petitioner on the 4th January 1968 or show no service of notice on the members of the Union Council. On the other hand, it is asserted by the respondent that the Controlling Authority received notice of the meeting for the 4th January 1968, from the Chairman on 11th January 1968, and the Controlling Authority received representation from seven out of nine members of the Union Council on 9th January in which they stated that no meeting was convened for 4th January 1968. In the absence of any evidence produced before us to show that the petitioner, who was authorised under the law to convene the meeting on receipt of the requisition, had, in fact, convened the meeting for the 4th January 1968, and in the face of the assertion of the res pondents that seven out of nine members of the Union Council have represented to the Controlling Authority that no meeting was convened by the Chairman on receipt of the requisition dated 23‑12‑196 7 and the Controlling Authority having received an intimation from the Chairman on 11th January 1968 about the convening of the meeting for the 4th January 1968, we cannot but come to the conclusion that no meeting was held on the 4th January 1968, or notified for the 4th January 1968, by the Chairman, i.e. the petitioner before us. Once it is found that no meeting was convened by the petitioner on the 4th January 1968, the meeting held on 19th January 1968, is within the second fortnight of the service of the requisition dated 23‑12‑1967 and as such valid and the no‑confidence motion passed in that meeting was perfectly held valid and operative. Although the petitioner has asserted in his petition that no notice for the meeting of the 19th January called by the Con trolling Authority was served, we are satisfied from the records produced before us by the learned Advocate for the State that no ices to the Members of the Union Council for the meeting on the 19th January were served in due course, and the petitioner having not been available in his house when the peon went to serve the notice on him it was served by hanging in front doors of the petitioner's house in presence of witnesses. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that no notice for the meeting was served on him is not tenable. In that view of the matter we find no substance in the application. One fact has been brought to our notice at the time of hearing of the petition by the learned Advocate that pending this application in this Court the petitioner went to the civil Court and filed a suit on 27‑2‑1968 and obtained an ad interim injunction prohibiting the Controlling Authority from holding election for new Chairman after his removal from office on the 19th January 1968. The petitioner filed an affidavit‑in‑reply on the 17th November 1969. The petitioner has not mentioned about his going to the civil Court and filing a suit and obtaining an injunction in the affidavit‑in‑reply. It may be mentioned here that this Court whip issuing a Rule nisi refused the prayer of the petitioner to grant stay order in the matter. Apart from the merit of the application which we have found against the petitioner, we feel that the petitioner has disentitled himself to any relief from this Court as a result of his going t the civil Court with regard to the same matter pending an application for disposal in this Court. We accordingly discharge the Rule with cost which is assessed at 10 (ten) gold mohurs K. HUSSAIN, J.‑--I agree. A. E. Rule discharged.