1982 PLP 142 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This order will govern C. P. S. L. A. No. 505/81 band C. P. S. L. A. No. 506/81, as the questions of law as well as the facts arising in both the matters are similar. The statements of facts here in below relate to C. P. S. L. A. No. 505/81 which is essentially similar to that obtaining in C. P. S. L. A. No. 506/81. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Town Committee, Khewra, District Jhelum in 1979 and was subsequently elected as its Chairman on 17‑1‑1980. Mehr Nazar Hussain, who was opposing him in the said election presented on 1‑3‑1981 a "motion of no‑confidence" moved by 13 out of the 18 members of the Town Committee and a meeting of the Town Committee, Khewra for considering it was summoned for 9‑3‑1981. This meeting was to be presided over by the Assistant Commissioner, Pind Dadan Khan. The case of the petitioner is that his niece is engaged to the son of Mehr Nazar Hussain aforementioned. On the evening of 8th March, 1981 family pressure was brought to bear upon the petitioner and he was coerced into submitting his resignation from the office of the Chairman, Town Committee, Khewra. The said resignation was received by the Secretary of the Town Committee, Khewra before the meeting commenced which was to consider the said no‑confidence motion. According to section 30 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 the Chairman of a local Council may resign his office by tendering resgination in writing to the Local Council of which he was the Chairman. The case of the petitioner is that such a resignation must be placed before the Local Council (Town Committee, Khewra in the present case) in order to be effective. The resignation of the petitioner, however, was not placed before the Town Committee, Khewra for its consideration when it assembled on 9‑3‑1981 but instead of considering it, the members proceeded with the consideration of the no‑confidence motion, which was carried by 13 votes to

5. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, moved an application before the Secretary, Local Government Punjab on 12‑3‑1981 under sections 156 and 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 in relation to the proceedings of the Town Committee, Khewra which took place on 9‑3‑1981. Since according to the petitioner, his resignation had not been placed before the Town Committee, Khewra and, therefore, not become effective he took steps to withdraw it and in this connection addressed a communication to the Secretary, Town Committee on 13‑3‑1981 informing him that he had withdrawn his resignation. However, by notification dated, 26‑3‑1981, the Election Authorities notified the resignation of the petitioner from Chairman ship with effect from 8‑3‑1981. In these circumstances the petitioner made a second application under sections 156 and 166 of the Punjab Local Govern ment Ordinance, 1979 before the Secretary, Local Government, Punjab impugning his removal from the ‑ office of Chairman, Town Committee, Khewra on the basis of the so‑called resignation aforementioned. In the application, the petitioner prayed for an inquiry into the circumstances in which the resignation was procured from him and circumstances and manner in which the meeting of the Town Committee was held on 9‑3‑1981. The petitioner prayed for setting aside of the notification declaring him as having resigned his office. This application is stated to be still pending. On 11‑4‑1981, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1919 of 1981 titled Major (Retd.) Muhammad Azam v. Town Committee and others, wherein he sought an appropriate direction for declaration/notification dated 26‑3‑1981 notifying his resignation to be void and of no legal effect. The petitioner submits that he did not seek any relief in relation to the proceedings of the Town Committee held on 9‑3‑1981 in which the resolution of no‑confidence was passed against him because against these proceedings, a petition had been moved before the Secretary, Local Government, which was still under consideration. The petitioner's case is that he merely sought a declaration from the High Court in relation to the resignation notification dated 26‑3‑1981. The High Court in its order missed on 11‑4‑1981 dismissing the writ petition observed as follows :‑ "It is contended now that as the petitioner had withdrawn his resigna tion, the Notification (Annexure `C') accepting the same and declaring that the petitioner is no longer a Chairman, i.e. without lawful authority. It is to be noted that in case the petitioner had withdrawn the resignation already tendered by him, then he remained a Chairman and con sequently stood removed on the passing of the no‑confidence motion against him on the 9th of March, 1981. On the other hand, if he had not withdrawn his resignation then the notification Annexure 'C' is perfectly valid." As in none of the situations, the petitioner remains to occupy his seat as Chairman, we do not find any justification to interfere." Mr. Aamer Raza A. Khan, in support of this petition contends that the learned Judges in the High Court erred in travelling to the matter relating to the no‑confidence motion. The case before the High Court simply was that the resignation of the petitioner had not become effective and he could have withdrawn it because it had not yet been considered by the Local Council. According to the learned counsel, in accordance with the provisions of section 30 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the Chairman may, resign his office by tendering resignation in writing to the Local Council of which he was Chairman. In accordance with section 37 of the said Ordinance the business of Local Council is to the extent and in the manner prescribed to be disposed of at its meeting. Reference was also made to the Punjab Local Council (Business) Rules, 1980 which prescribe the executive powers of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Local Council. The consideration of all these provisions, according to the learned counsel, yields the result that the resignation of the Chairman in order to be effective must be placed before the Local Council and that the law does not contemplate any action in relation to the resignation being taken either by an elected office‑bearers of the Town Committee or by any of its functionaries. The plea in short is that till such time as the resignation is actually placed before the Local Council itself, it does not become effective. After having beard the learned counsel at some length we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the question being canvassed, namely, whether the resignation of Local Council becomes effective immedi ately on its being transmitted to a responsible functionary of the Local Body or only after it has been placed before the Local Council and considered by it should be decided. As the learned Judges in the High Court have observed that in this case if the plea of the petitioner is accepted that hi resignation had not become effective, the result would be that the meeting convened in connection with no‑confidence motion moved against him could proceed. That meeting did, in fact, proceed and the motion of the no‑confidence was carried by the requisite majority (13 members voting against him and only 5 standing to support him). Consequently, the petitioner could not remain as Chairman of the Union Council. The plea of the petitioner's counsel that since the proceeding of no‑confidence motion had been challenged by a petition before the Secretary, Local Bodies and, therefore, the High Court should not have gone into the effect of the said no‑confidence motion, is a technicality which we cannot countenance in the present proceedings. We note that 13 members out of 18 were signatories of the no‑confidence motion. The resignation was tendered or "procured" after that motion had been moved, that the same number of members who bad moved the motion, actually voted against the petitioner. It is therefore, clear that the petitioner had lost the confidence of the house and cannot be thrust upon it on technical and fetish pleas. The result is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby. As the position in the connected C. P. S. L. A. No. 506 of 1981 is also similar the said petition also fails and is dismissed. The result is that both C. Ps. S. L. A. Nos. 505/81 and 506/81 are dismissed hereby. Petitions dismissed.