P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

RAHMAN, C. J.‑

Muhammad Ishaq, the petitioner in this case, has been removed from membership of the Qasur Municipal Committee and disqualified for membership for five years by virtue of a notification dated the 1st of June 1956, purporting to have been issued under section 16 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, by the Commissioner, Lahore Division. He has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court and prayed that the notification issued by the Commissioner be declared to be illegal and ultra vires and his disqualification removed. The petition has been contested on behalf of the Government of West Pakistan and the Commissioner, Lahore Division. The charge against the petitioner was that he, as Chairman of the Education Sub‑committee of the Qasur Municipal Committee, had recommended the appointment of one, Muhammad Yusuf. his mother's sister's son, and Mst. Amina Begum, the real brother's wife of Chaudhri Allah Din, another Municipal Commissioner, who were unqualified hands as school teacher and school mistress, respectively, in the committee schools, although qualified hands were avail able. It was further stated that he had taken part in the proceedings of the Municipal Committee and exercised his vote during those proceedings which gave approval to the said appointments on behalf of the Committee. In this respect the petitioner was alleged to have contravened Rule 3‑A of the General Administration Rules framed by the Government under section 240 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. It was added that the Committee deliberately employed the said Muhammad Yusuf, on the "coercion" of the petitioner, with out obtaining proper sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, such as was requisite under Rule 3‑B of the General Administration Rules. The Deputy Commissioner had later refused to accord approval to the employment of these two relatives of the Municipal Commissioner. It appears that the explanation of the petitioner was called by the Commissioner on these allegations and he pointed out that Rules 3‑A and 3‑B of the General Administration Rules in fact did not cover the allegations made. The Commissioner, however, took a different view and issued the notification mentioned above under section 16 (e) of the Act. This enables the Provincial Government by notification to remove any member of a committee if, in the opinion of the Provincial Government, he has flagrantly abused his position as a member of the committee or has through negligence or misconduct been responsible for the loss, or misapplication of any money or property of the committee. The notification does not mention under which part of this clause the conduct of the petitioner falls, but presumably the first part of the clause has been pressed into service in the instant case. The main ground of the action taken against the petitioner is the alleged contravention of Rules 3‑A and 3‑B of the General Adminis tration Rules said to have been committed by the petitioner. These rules may be reproduced below with advantage. "3‑A. No member of a committee shall be present at or vote or take any other part in any proceeding of a committee or sub‑committee relating to a matter in which he or either of his parents or any other descendants of either of his parents or the husband or wife as may be of any such descendant, has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. 3‑B. No person, who is either a parent or descendant of a member of a Municipal Committee, or a descendant of any parent of such member, or the husband or wife of such member or descendant, or a parent of the husband or wife of such member, or a descendant of any such parent last referred to, shall be appointed as an officer or servant of such municipal committee without the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner". Mr. S. A. Mahmud, on behalf of the respondents, has strenuously argued before us that this Court is precluded from going into the question as to whether the action taken by the Commissioner was justifiable or not, as the matter was wholly within the discretion of the Provincial Government (now the Commissioner), and it was that authority's subjective satisfaction that could form the basis of an order of this character. As the notification itself did not reveal grounds of the action taken, we have perused the charges that were levelled against the petitioner. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel and considering the facts as revealed by the various affidavits filed by either side, we have come to the conclusion that the notification impugned, represents action based on a wholly erroneous view of the law. If it had been a mere matter of opinion on the basis of facts found by the Commissioner on an investigation, and the order had been passed within the four corners of the statute, no interference may have been called for by this Court. But this is not the real position. The Commissioner's order was clearly based on al misreading of the General Administration Rules 3‑A and 3‑B. It is admitted that the person, who was appointed a temporary teacher in a municipal school at Qasur, was the mother's sister's son of the petitioner. Such a relation is not covered by the language of Rules 3‑A and 3‑B in question, unless it is assumed that the word "parents" occurring in Rule 3‑A includes their ascendants. That this is not so is clear from the fact that the word "parents" is preceded by the words "either of his". This obviously implies a reference to the father and mother of the member and not to their ascendants. The mention of descendants in the rule, to the exclusion of ascendants, is a pointer in the same direction. The legal position was, therefore, misconceived by the learned Com missioner and it is now impossible to say what opinion he might have formed if he had not taken a wrong view of the law. The foundation of the order passed by him being a clearly erroneous interpretation of the rules, the order suffers' from a fundamental defect which vitiates it. There was some suggestion that the petitioner may have been guilty of some kind of fraudulent conduct in smuggling in the petition of his relative for one of the posts vacant, after the due date, but that allegation does not form part of the charge against the petitioner and has not apparently been investigated. We are, therefore constrained to hold that the Commissioner's order in this case was illegal and merits vacation. We hereby declare that the order in question on which the notification was based, was illegal and consequently the notification is of no effect. We issue the direction that the respondents should not give effect to this notification. The petitioner will have the costs of these proceedings. A.H. Petition accepted.