1992 PLP 986 (CLC)

IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.‑‑‑By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the two petitioners who have been the Chairman and Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Dadu have questioned the validity of Notification of Government of Sindh dated 21st March, 1991 bearing No.SOV‑MC‑VII(22)/90 whereby the Government of Sindh in exercise of their powers under section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 have superseded the Municipal Committee, Dadu with immediate effect and appointed Bashir. Ahmed the respondent No.3 as its Chairman during the period of its supersession, The events that occurred before the impugned notification briefly stated are as follows: The Government of Sindh through its Additional Secretary, Local Government addressed the following letter dated 21st October, 1990 to the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Dadu: "The Chairman, Municipal Committee, Dadu. Sub: ENQUIRY AGAINST TILE COUNCIL. NAMELY MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE DADU. WHEREAS complaints were made regarding the commission of gross irregularities and financial indiscipline by the above‑noted council to discharge its functions in accordance with law.

2. AND WHEREAS, enquiry into the affairs of the said Council had been got conducted generally by the Government in the provision of section

56. Of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, through Director, Local Fund Audit, Sindh, Karachi, who has reported the instances of malpractices. abuse of power, financial indiscipline and acts of omission/commission in violation of the provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, Rules and orders of the Government committed by the above noted Council (Annexure A‑I).

3. AND WHEREAS, prima facie case exists hereby the Government is of the opinion that the above‑noted Council:‑ (1) has been unable to discharge its duties in accordance with law; (2) has failed to administer its affairs and make financial obligation properly; and/or ' (iii) has exceeded/abused its powers.

4. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of powers conferred under section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979, you are hereby directed to place this notice alongwith said instances of misconduct, financial indiscipline etc. mentioned in Annexure A‑I, immediately, before the Council in a Special meeting in 3 days time and forward explanation of the Council, if any, and also Show Cause as to why the said Council should not be superseded for the period not exceeding 6 months. The reply should reach this Department on or before 29‑10‑1990 failing which the matter shall be decided ex parte. Sd/‑ (GHULAM ABBAS SOOMRO ) ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,LOCAL GOVERNMENT???????? No.SOV‑MC‑VII(22)/90(Part file). Karachi, dated 21‑10‑1990. (1) The Secretary to Chief Minister, Sindh, Karachi. (2) The Private Secretary to Minister for Local Government, Sindh, Karachi. ??????????? Sd/‑ (SYED AKHTAR HUSSAIN SHAH MUSAVI ) Section Officer‑V For Additional Secretary, Local Govt." Annexure A‑I was enclosed with this letter which is reproduced herein below:‑ "MIS‑APPROPRIATION"

1. While conducting post‑audit the Resident Audit Officer Municipal Committee Dadu had detected misappropriation to the tune of Rs.33,181/01. The above amount was received by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed Peachoho Accounts Clerk on account of recovery of various taxes, fees etc. through Tax Supd: for credit into Municipal Fund. But the Accounts Clerk had not deposited the same in to the municipal Fund and rnisappropriated. On enquiry the Accountant 'Municipal L,ommittce has stated that Rs.6,496 were wrongly deposited into pension fund and Rs.5,092 were already credited into Municipal Committee Fund and remaining amount of Rs.21593/0l which were mis‑appropriated have been recovered him by Mr. Manzoor, Accounts Clerk and credited into municipal Committee Fund only Bank Credit slips for 'Zs.21,5"93/ol available from 12‑8‑1990 to 2‑9‑1990. On verification of cash book it was noticed that the same was not written from 19‑7‑1990. Prior to this the cash book was signed by the Accountant and Chief Municipal Officer from 1‑12‑1989 it) 18‑7‑1990. The National Bank Pass Book A/c. P‑17 was written upto 16‑8‑1990, showing balance Rs.45,

147. Thus the cash book and Bank Pass Books were not written and reconciled as such the actual credit of Rs.21,593/Ol could not be verified. This state of affairs showed that due attention towards maintenance of most important Accounts Books was not given as required by the Sindh Local Councils Accounts R ides 1983,

2. LEASE OF OCTROI TAX FOR 1989‑90 Lease of Octroi Tax for 89‑90 was awarded to M/s. Shahbaz contractor on offer for Rs.30,00,

000. The official bid was Rs.3,31,875 but offer of the firm Rs.3,000,000 was approved by the Council vide Reso‑3 dated 30‑6‑1989 and confirmed Govt. vide No.SOV‑MC‑V(2)/90 dated 8‑2‑1990 Possession of lease was handed over to lessee on 1‑7‑1989 and agreement was executed on 1‑11‑1989. It means the possession was handed over without executing agreement and approval of Government. This action was against the Govt. Orders and Rules. (a) Earnest money and security deposit equal to 1% and 10% of lease money Rs.3,00,000 and 300,000 were recovered on 2‑7‑1989 and 3‑7‑1989. (b) Remaining lease money Rs.2,700,000 (3000000 10% S.D.) ‑was to be recovered in twelve instalments Rs.225,000 each 3t 30th of every month as per agreement. The lessee had never paid instalment on due date. However, register showed that Rs.2,690,011 were paid by lessee upto 30‑6‑1990 leaving balance outstanding Rs.9,989 against the lessee. But no action under clause I of agreement reg: cancellation of lease and forfeiture of security deposit was taken. ' (c) Clause 3 of agreement denotes that the lessee shall have to pay income tax equal to 3% of lease money i.e. Rs.90,000 on date of possession. But not a single paisa has been received upto 30‑6‑1990. (d) Clause 4 of agreement denotes that lessee was bound to pay salary, leave and pension contribution of Octroi Staff every month. Accordingly Rs.439,631/48 were due on this account against which the lessee had paid Rs.331,731 /62 leaving balance outstanding Rs.107,881/86 against the lessee. (c) According to agreement the lessee was bound to pay the cost of liveries supplied to Octroi Staff. Whereas Rs.2,100 were spent on the cost of liveries by M.C. but recovery was not made from lessee. In all Rs.209,970.86 were outstanding against lessee due to non, execution of lease in accordance with agreement and Rules.

3. LEASE OF SERVICE FEE FOR 89‑90 Lease of service fee was put into open auction on 26‑6‑1989 for 89‑90 with official bid of Rs.4,00,

000. The highest bid Rs.11,00,000 was offered by Shabir Ahmed son of Muhammad Juman Solangi who deposited auction fee Rs.4,000 at the time of auction. This bid was approved by Council vide Reso: 2 dated 30‑6‑1989 but the same was not referred to District Auction Committee for approval. The lessee had refused to execute the lease and credit of S.D. on the plea that approval of service tax from Government has not yet been received and no Gazette notification issued upto 1‑7‑1989. The Gazette was issued vide No.MCD/TAX/152/89 dated 16‑8‑1989 effective for 1‑7‑1989. The matter regarding refusal of execution of lease was not placed before the council and Rs.4,000 of lessee were forfeited vide Chairman D.D.TS 242 dated 5‑7‑1989. The lease was reauctioned on 18‑7‑1989 and highest bid Rs.1,020,000 was offered by Mr. Nazrr Ahmed son of Mehar Khan which was approved by council vide Reso:2 dated 19‑7‑1989 the matter was referred to District Auction Committee vide No.MSD/TS/291 dt: 20‑7‑1989 but confirmation of Committee was not received. Prior to this the possession was handed over to the lessee on 19‑7‑1989. This action was against the Government orders and rules. The following further observations are made:‑ (a) Agreement was executed on 11‑1‑1990 with lessee. (b) The lessee had deposited Rs.112,200 equal to 11% of lease money. (c) According to agreement the lessee was bound to pay the lease money in twelve instalments of Rs.85,000 each on 5th of every month. But the lessee had paid Rs.666,212 upto 30‑6‑1990 leaving balance Rs.353,788 outstanding against lease as per clause 4 of agreement. But neither the due amount was worked out nor any single paisa on this account was recovered from lessee. (d) According to clause 2 of agreement the lessee has not paid the income tax Rs.30,900 equal to 3% of lease money. (c) The Departmental recovery from 1‑7‑t989 Nvas DOI worked out. Rs.36,842 only were recovered from lessee on account of proportionate instalment of 85,000 from July, 1990. Unless the record and actual figure of recovery from 1‑7‑1989 to 18‑7‑1989 was worked out the less recovery of Rs.48,458 could not be authenticated. In view of above it would be seen that the lease was not executed in accordance with agreement and no action was taken against the lessee hence arrears accumulated to the tune of Rs.284,3S7 in addition to pay of staff alongwith leave and pension contribution to be worked out. 4,? LEASE OF SERVICE FEE AND OCTRO'FOR 90‑91 Lease of Cotroi Tax and service tax was awarded on after to M/s. Shaikh Corporation for 43,00,000 as approved by Government Sov‑MC‑V(22)/90 dated 6‑8‑1990 for 90‑

91. Agreement was executed on 22‑9‑1990. (a) After deducting Rs.4,30,000 S.D. the lessee has to pay the remaining lease money Rs.3,870,000 in twelve instalments of Rs.322,5IN) each 5th of every month in advance. Although the instalments in full on due date were not deposited by lessee yet in all due amount of Rs.967,500 upto 12‑9‑1990 equal to three instalments were recovered from lessee (b) The pay, leave and pension contribution for staff for months of July and August 1990 was due l:s.87,499.14 which has been paid by lessee. (c) According to clause 3 of agreement the lessee was bound to pay income tax Rs.1,29,000 equal to 3%0 lease money in advance. This amount has not yet been recovered for onwards transmission to Income Tax Department. 5? ARREARS Arrears of revenue Rs.1,764,78t and Rs.2,606.024 were outstanding on 30‑6‑1989 and 3‑6‑1990. The arrears of revenue were increasing every year and no proper efforts were made to recover the arrears in the interest of council. 6. ??????? MIS‑UTILIZATION OF GOVT. GRANTS The Government Grants were received from time to time for execution of development schemes. The amounts were to be spent on the purposes for which they were received. But the following amounts were transferred to M.C. Fund for payment of salaries to staff without the prior approval of Govt. Thus these Govt. grants to that extend have been misutilized. S. No.????????????? Particulars??????????????????? Date???????????????? Amount transferred ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? to MC, Fund 1.???????????????????? Dev, of Katchi ??????????????????????? Abadi Fund????????????????? 12‑5‑88?????????? Rs.2,00,000 2.???????????????????? Govt. Dev: grant ??????????????????????? fund????????????????????????????? 10‑8‑89?????????? Rs.2,00,000 3.???????????????????? ‑‑‑‑do‑‑‑‑??????????????????? 31‑7‑90?????????? Rs.3,87,183/34 ??????????????????????? Rs.7,87,183/34 Out of above, Rs.3,87,183/34 were refunded to Govt. on 26‑8‑1990. Besides Rs.50,000 were drawn from Security Deposit a/c to General Fund on 22‑11‑1988 to meet the day to day expenditure of Municipal Commitee. This was trust fund and cannot be utilized for other purposes. Hence the drawal of amounts from security deposit fund was irregular and amounts to misutilization of trust fund." It appears that the show‑cause notice mentioned in preceding paragraph was placed before the special meeting of the Municipal Committee Dadu held on 28‑10‑1990 and the Municipal Committee by their resolution passed on that date authorised their Chairman the petitioner No.l to make suitable reply. The petitioner No.l then addressed a letter dated 28‑10‑1990 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government and Rural Development Department Sindh, Karachi explaining the allegations contained in Annexure?A‑I annexed to the show‑cause notice. The said letter is reproduced herein below:‑ "NO.MCD/ACCTS‑175 of 1990. Municipal Committee, Dadu. Dated: 28‑10‑1990. The Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Public Health Engineering, Local Govt., & Rural Development Department, Sindh, Karachi. Subject: ENQUIRY AGAINST THE COUNCIL NAMELY MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE. DADU Refnee:‑ Your letter No.SOV‑MC‑VII(22)/90 (Part file) Govt. of. Sindh, Local Govt. Sindh Karachi dt: 21‑10‑1990 received on 22‑10‑1990 @ 1.00 p.m. The entire office staff was pre‑occupied with Election Training on 22‑10‑1990 & Election duty to collect polling station material on 23‑10‑1990. Both days office remained locked. The show cause containing No.SOV‑MC‑VII(22)/90 (Part file) dt. 21‑10‑1990 has been placed before Council in its special meeting held on 28‑10‑1990 at 12.00 Noon for perusal discussion with a request to furnish parawise replies of the audit memo attached to it. The. Council after verification of the relevant record dictated the reply parawise which is appended below for favour of necessary consideration. It has been observed that trifle charges attributed towards the Council do not contain serious flaws and carry no weight at all, thus warranting no any unpleasant action, as the charges are refuted in pursuance of the loss of Rs.21,593.01 on account of mis‑appropriation committed by Mr. Manzoor Ali Pechuho Accounts Clerk, Municipal Committee, Dadu has since been made good in token with verification of Bank Pass Book and Cash Book, which is now upto date. Even then, Mr. Manzoor Ali has been reverted to the lower grade as a sort of imposition of major penalty over him, under the provisions of F&D Rules, 1974. The second charge relating to balance outstanding dues of various leases, it may be apprised for your kind information that the files have already been entrusted to the Advocate for filing civil suits, who has issued legal notices to the defaulting lessee's long ago. The Director Local Fund Audit, Sukkur & Enquiry Officer was apprised about filing of Civil Suits on 30‑9‑1990 when he was conducting inspection of Municipal Committee, Dadu. As per his demand the relevant files were collected back from the Advocate and shown to the Enquiry Officer, but I believe this fact appears to have been slipped away as such it is not recorded in the inspection memo. The third one charge is about arrears of various taxes and fees. The' efforts were put through Revenue Authorities, who have issued several notices under sections 81 and 82 defaulting taxes and fees payers for huge amount, as this is already apprised to the Government of Sindh, vide this office letter No.MCD/TAX/‑133 dated 8‑4‑1990. Photo copy enclosed, the relevant files and report sent to the Government were got perused from the Assistant Director, Local Fund, Audit and Enquiry Officer during the time of inspection, but he has failed to record this fact. The 4th charge is about misutilization of Govt. Grant. I find it very much necessary that the Budget of this Council is deficit by 20 to 30 Lacs every year, since 1988 due to the Revision of pay of Municipal Staff and exorbitant rates of the commodities to be purchased must and daily routine just to maintain Water Supply/Street Light/Drainage scheme and the sanitation of the town, which is to be provided to the population of the town by the Municipal Committee as a sort of it's compulsory function in shape of civic amenity. Therefore the amount of Rs.787,183.34 was taken in shape of loan under various Resolutions of the Council, for clearing the salaries of staff to avoid hue and cry of the staff. It has been admitted by the Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit of Enquiry Officer in his inspection memo at paragraph 6 that Rs.387,183.34 have been refunded by Municipal Committee Dadu on, 26‑8‑1990 after realising the recovery of arrears. The charge‑wise replies in detail are appended below for your kind information and necessary consideration. As regards para No.l of the inspection memo, it is brought for favour of kind information that the loss on account of misappropriation amounting to Rs.21,593.01 committed by Mr. Manzoor Ali Pechuho Accounts Clerk, Municipal Committee, Dadu has since been made good in taken with the verification of Bank Pass Book and Cash Book, which is now upto date. About non‑maintaining of Cash Book for which the requisite formalities have been observed while issuing him this office letter Nos.644 tit: 19‑4‑1990, 677 tit: 2‑5‑1990, 704 tit. 5‑5?1990, 749 tit: 12‑5‑1990, 1078 tit. 14‑7‑1990. In the last he was placed under suspension for non‑compliance of the instructions issued to him from time to time vide this office order No.1190 dated 31‑7‑1990. The show‑cause notice containing Nos.MCD/GB/‑1275 dated 22‑8‑1990 and 1415 dated 19‑9‑1990 has also been served upon him to explain his position. He has admitted to have committed mis‑appropriation and remitted Rs.21,593.1 only. Even then Mr. Manzoor Ali Pechuho, Accounts clerk has been reverted to the lower grade as a result of major penalty, under E& D Rules, 1974. The photostat copies of the relevant documents are enclosed.

2. As regards para. No.2(b), it is brought for kind information that the' lessee has remitted Rs.26,90,011.00 upto 30‑6‑1990, leaving balance of Rs.9,989 against the lessee as pointed out in the inspection memo. The Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit and Enquiry Officer was fully explained in person that Rs.30,000 of the lessee as 1% earnest money was yet outstanding against Municipal Committee, out of which the balance outstanding of Rs.9,989 was earlier adjusted and there yet remains an amount of Rs.20,011, of the lessee outstanding under against Municipal Committee Dadu and therefore no action under clause I of the agreement regarding forfeiture of the security deposit was granted. 2(c) So far 3% Income Tax of the lease money i.e. Rs.90,000 is concerned, the lessee had furnished Certificate of Income Tax Department to the effect that no dues of Income Tax are outstanding against him, this Income Tax Completion Certificate was verified and perused by the Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit & Enquiry Officer during the time of inspection. It's photostat copy is enclosed. 2(d) As pointed out by the Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit & Enquiry Officer, at para 2/d about non‑payment of leave and pension contribution etc. by the lessee is admitted that there yet remains Rs.107,881.86 against the lessee for the year 1989‑90 for which a civil suit is under process, as cited above. This issue was also discussed with the Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit at the length by the concerned quarter. 2(e) It is a fact that the liveries were supplied to the 4th Class employees of octroi Branch, cost of which was not recovered from the contractor, for which notices have been issued to the lessee for its payment. As already pointed out that the liveries cost of Rs.2,100 will be deducted from his remaining amount of earnest money i.e. Rs.20,011 in case he fails to make payment of Rs.2,

100. LEASE OF SERVICE FEE FOR THE YEAR 1989‑90 As regards para No3 about lease of Service Fee is concerned, it may be apprised for your kind information that the said fee put to open auction for the year 1989‑90 with official bid of Rs.4,00,000 was. knocked down at the highest bid of Rs.ll lacs in favour of Shabbir Ahmad son of Muhammad Juman Solangi, who also deposited Rs.4,000 as 1% Earnest money at the time of auction. No doubt, the bid was approved by the Council vide Resolution No.2 dated 30‑6‑1989, but lessee retreated and refused to execute the lease and credit the Security deposit, on the plea that no Gazette Notification for levy of fee was notified upto 1‑7‑1989. Therefore, the case for confirmation of the lease was not referred to the District Auction Committee & put to re‑auction on 18‑7‑1989, before the Council while forfeiting Rs.4000 as Earnest money deposited by the absconding lessee viz. Shabbir Ahmad Solangi. During the next auction, it was disposed of in sum of Rs.10,20,000 in favour of Mr. Nazir Ahmed son of Mehar Khan Bhand which was approved by the Council vide it's Resolution No.2 dated 19‑7‑1989 and referred to the District Auction Committee, under this office letter No.MCD/TAX/251 dated 20‑7‑1989 as well as the possession handed over to the lessee on 19‑7‑1989 in conformity of the decision taken by the Council vide its Resolution No.2 dated 19‑7‑1989 (photostat copy enclosed.) 3(a) As para No.(a) about agreement is concerned, it may be stated for your kind information that the lessee Mr. Nazir Ahmad Bhand was persuaded through several notices from time to time to execute the. agreement. As a result of his failure after giving a final notice bearing No‑5 tit. 7‑1‑1990 duly served, the lease was cancelled at his responsibility and costs on 7‑1‑1990, but again on the recommendation and undertaking of the Councillors viz: M/s. Haji Muhammad Hussain Solangi & Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi, the possession was restored to the lessee after getting the agreement executed on 11‑1‑1990. 3(b&c) As para No.3 (b&c) are concerned, it may be apprised that an amount of Rs.112,200 being security deposit and earnest money at the rate of 11% was collected from the lessee and remitted towards Municipal funds. So far the instalments rate of Rs.85,000 per month to be paid by the lessee every month are concerned, the lessee sustaining a loss as being claimed by him, only paid Rs.6,66,212 upto 30‑6‑1990 leaving balance of Rs.353,788 outstanding against him. Not only this, the amount of pay of staff, leave and pension contribution alongwith 3% (d&e) are also outstanding against him, for which as already apprised in the preceding para's a civil suit is under process, which was collected back from advocate and got perused from the Assistant Director Local Fund Audit on his demand. As far para No.3(f) is concerned, it may be stated for your kind information that the lease was conducted on 18‑7‑1989 and its possession was handed over on 19‑7‑1989, the lessee put request for adjustment of the departmental recovery from 1‑7‑1989 to 18‑7‑1989 at the rate of monthly instalment of Rs.85,000 which comes to Rs.48,158 was allowed by the council vide Resolution No.2 dated 19‑7‑1989. As it was new fee levied during the year 1989‑90 and there were no actual recovery figures for the past, to ascertain the adjustment an amount of Rs.36,842 for the period from 19‑7‑1989 to 31‑7‑1989 was only collected from the contractor while acceding to his request for the period from 1‑7‑1989 to 18‑7‑1989. It is found necessary to bring to you kind notice that Rs.112,200 equal to 11% of lease money already collected from lessee is kept with the Municipal Committee Security deposit. The actual loss whatsoever sustained to Municipal Committee, after verifying deposit of Rs.112,200.

4. So far as the lease of Service Fee and Octroi Tax for the year' 1990‑91 as at para No.4 is concerned, it may be submitted that the lease of Octroi tax and service fee awarded on offer to M/s. Sheikh Corporation for Rs.43 lacs has been approved by the Government under letter No.SOV‑MC‑V/(22)/90 dated 6‑8‑1990 and the, agreement has also been executed with the contractor. Uptil now the regular instalments at rate of Rs.322,500 alongwith pay, Leave & Pension contribution for Octroi staff are regularly collected and no any sort of dues are outstanding against him excepting 3% Income Tax of lease money for which a notice has been issued to the contractor to clear up the Income Tax dues of Rs.1,29,

000. The concerned lessee got direct dealing with the Income Tax Department in connection with his other businesses and would furnish, clearance/Completion certificate of the Income Tax Department. In case of non‑production of the requisite certificate of Income Tax Department he has promised to pay up Rs.1,29,000 alongwith monthly instalments.

5. So far as arrears as at para No.5 are concerned, it is submitted for your kind information that the efforts were put through Revenue Authorities, who have issued several notices under sections 81 and 82 of Land Revenue Act. Not only this, the civil suits stand filed against defaulting tax and fees payers for huge amounts, as this is already apprised to the Govt. of Sindh, vide this office letter' No.MCD/TAX/133 dated 8‑4‑1990, (photostat copy enclosed). The relevant file and report sent to the Government were got perused from the Assistant Director, Local Fund Audit and Enquiry Officer during time of inspection, but he has failed to record this fact.

6. As far misutilisation of Government Grant is concerned. It may be submitted for kind information and necessary consideration that I find it very much necessary to point out that the budget of this council is deficit by 20 to 30 Lacs every year, since 1988 due to the revision of pay of Municipal Staff and exorbitant rates of the commodities to be purchased must daily‑routine just to maintain Water Supply/Street Light/Drainage Scheme and the Sanitation of the town, which is to be provided to the population of the town by the Municipal Committee, as a sort of its compulsory function in shape of civic amenity. Therefore the amount of Rs.787,183.34 was taken in shape of loan under various Resolutions of the Council, for clearing the Salaries of staff to avoid hue and cry of the staff'. It has been admitted by the Assistant Director Local Fund Audit and Enquiry Officer, in his inspection memo at paragraph No.6 that Rs.387,183.34 have been refunded by Municipal Committee, Dadu on 26‑8‑1990 after realising the recovery of arrears. So far withdrawal of Rs.50,000 from security deposit account to !general fund on 22‑11‑1988 is concerned, it may be apprised for your kind information that the said amount was not in fact Security deposit, as it was not out put of the contract, to have been kept to secure future process. The said amount was collected from the Telephone & Telegraph Department being Road Cutting Charges, which ought to have been deposited towards General I fund, as the minor repairs of ‑ roads and drains are always financed through General Fund. Factually the said funds were not drawn to meet day to day !expenditure of Municipal Committee, it may be added for your kind 'information that an. amount of Rs.66,091 being liability of over‑draft was to be 1 paid to the National Bank of Pakistan, Dadu. Thus the amount was rightly used and no misutilization took place at all. With Regards. ??????????? (MEHTAB AHMAD SHAIKH) ??????????????????????? CHAIRMAN ??????????? MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, DADU.' The Government of Sindh, it appears was not satisfied with the? explanation offered by petitioner No.l on behalf of the Municipal Committee Dadu and took action under section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 superseding the said Council and appointed respondent No.3 as the Administrator to perform the functions of the same council .during the period of its supersession vide their notification No.SOV‑MC‑Vll(22)/90 dated 21st March, 1991 published in the Sindh Government Gazette, Part I on 4th July, 1991. It is this Notification which has been impugned by the two petitioners. Mr. Rasool Bux Unar, Advocate for the petitioners mainly contended that the order of supersession has in fact been obtained by respondent 3 mala fides as he happens to be in good books of the present Government. According to him the allegations contained in the show‑cause notice have no concern with the council itself but concerns working of a particulars department of the Municipal Committee Dadu. Under the circumstances the Government could not have taken action against the council as a whole. In support of his. contentions he referred to the cases reported in PLD 1958 Kar. 526; PLD 195& Dacca 102 and 1990 CLC

954. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, the Assistant Advocate‑General Sindh contended that the petitioners have not been able to expressly state the nature of mala fides but have merely made sweeping allegations. According to him the orders contained in the Notification impugned in this petition have been passed after due compliance of the provision of law and within the compliance of the Government of Sindh. He pointed out that the facts relating to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the case of M. Jamil Ahmad v. Chief Commissioner, Karachi and Municipal Commissioner, Karachi reported in PLD 1958 (W.P.) Kar. 56 the Karachi Municipal Corporation was dissolved by the order of the Chief Commissioner, Karachi under section 80 of the City of Karachi Municipal Act, 1933. This order of dissolution was admittedly passed at the behest of the Government of Pakistan and it was, therefore, held that the order dissolving the corporation could have been passed by the Provincial Government independently and not under instructions of any superior authority like the Government of Pakistan. It was mainly on this account that such order was dissolved. In the present case the order has been passed by the Provincial Government in exercise of their powers under section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the case relied on by the Advocate for the petitioner is of no avail to the petitioners. In the case of Ch. Shamsuddin Ahmed v. Province of East Pakistan and others reported in PLD 1959 Dacca 102 the notification issued by the Provincial Government superseding District Board, Faridpur by their order passed on 1st January 1958 was questioned. The main ground of attack in that case was that the orders passed by the Provincial Government were illegal as the concerned Board was not given an opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order of supersession. The notice given by the Government did not clearly indicate that on the basis of the allegations contained in the notice Government proposed to take action against the entire Board. It was on this account that the order of dissolution was set aside. In the present case the notice itself specifically and clearly indicated that action of superseding the council was clearly intended. Mr. Rasool Bux Unar, the Advocate for the petitioners lastly relied on the case of Hamzo Khan v. Government of Sindh and 2 others published in' 1990 C L C

954. In that case the District Council Thatta was superseded on the basis of allegations against certain members who had allegedly contravened the provision of section 51(10) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Under the circumstances the members who had acted contrary to the provisions contained in that section were at best liable to action under .subsection (11) of the section 51 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Government of Sindh instead resorted to action under section 58(1) and ordered the dissolution of the council. Section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 empowers 8 the Provincial Government to supersede a local council for a period not exceeding six months only after holding an enquiry and on consideration of objections from the council. Such a mandatory provision of law was not followed in dissolving District Council Thatta and petitioner Hamzo Khan therefore, succeeded in his petition mainly on that ground. In the present case not only the enquiry contemplated by section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 has been conducted by the Government but the council was invited to record their objections. The facts mentioned above clearly indicated that the procedure prescribed by section 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 was duly compl;ed with and the above case cited by the Advocate for the petitioner has no application in the circumstances of the present case. A number of allegations were made against the District Council itself and show‑cause notice was issued to it. The allegations mentioned therein clearly relate to the working of the entire council and not merely to the working of a department of the council as it was contended further by the Advocate for the petitioners. For the foregoing 'reasons we find no force in this petition. Provincial Government under section 58(1) can only order supersession of a council for a period not exceeding six months. The Notification impugned in this petition does not specify the period for which the D council has been superseded. At best it can be effective for a. period of six months only whereafter the council shall have to be reconstituted in terms of section 58(3) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Subject to the above direction the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1517/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.