P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

LARI, J.--‑This writ petition challenges the validity of an order passed on 7th December 1956 by the West Pakistan Government superseding the Municipality of Hyderabad under section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, primarily on the ground that the order did not disclose the reasons for the supersession. Section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 runs thus: "(1) If, in the opinion of the Provincial Government, a municipality is not competent to perform, or persistently makes default in the performance of, the duties imposed on it by or under this Act, or otherwise by law exceeds of abuses its powers, the Provincial Government may, after giving the municipality an opportunity to render an explana tion, by an order published, with the reasons therefore, in the Official Gazette declare the municipality to be incompe tent or in default, or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the case may be, and may dissolve such municipality or supersede it for a period to be specified in the order'". Effect of failure on the part of the Provincial Government to give reasons has been considered in two Division Bench cases decided by this Court. In Writ Petition No. 87 of 1955, Mir Ali Ahmad Khan v. Province of West Pakistan I observed as follows: "There is even a more glaring non‑compliance of the pro vision of section

179. The resolution does not give reasons which led the Provincial Government to form the requisite opinion. In the absence of reasons it cannot be said whether the opinion of the Provincial Government was based on relevant or irrelevant considerations. The resolution satis fied itself with stating the conclusion. There is, therefore, clear non‑compliance of the provisions of section 179 and this non‑compliance must necessarily vitiate the order of supersession". I may note that section 179 of the Sind District Municipal Act, 1901 is on the same lines as section 219 quoted above. This very section 219 came to be considered in case Syed Quatali Shah v. The Province of West Pakistan (P L D 1957 Kar. 346) in Writ Peti tion 179 of 1955, decided by another Bench of this Court. Inamullah, J. who delivered the judgment observed as follows: "Reading the language as reproduced above of subsec tion (1) of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, it is clear that if the Provincial Government decided to declare the Municipality incompetent, and on that ground it, superseded the same, it had no option but to give the reasons for its declaration". The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent did not contest the correctness of the proposition laid in the two cases mentioned above but contend ed that the notification about supersession does give reasons. We are not prepared to accept this contention. The notifica tion runs thus: "Dated Lahore, 17th December 1956. No. 10598‑B & C‑

56. Whereas the Municipality of Hyderabad has incompe tently performed, has persistently made default in the performance of, the duties imposed on it ‑under the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, and has exceeded and abused its powers in the following matters, namely :‑ (i) the contracts of lease relating to sites, removal of sullage water, etc., resulting in wastage of Municipal property and funds; (ii) the countenancing of nepotism and corruption practised on a large scale by officers and servants of the Municipality while the Municipality made little effort to check the same ; (iii) the deliberate failure to discharge its statutory duties ; and (iv) the exercise of certain powers in contravention of a statutory authority's directive. . And whereas the Municipality was given an opportunity to explain and the explanation rendered by it has been found unsatisfactory. Now, therefore, the Governor of West Pakistan, in exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1) of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, is pleased to declare the Municipality of Hyderabad to be incompetent to perform, to have persistently made default and to have exceeded and abused its powers as aforesaid and is further pleased to supersede the said Municipality for a period of one year with effect from the date of publication of this notification or till the reconstitution of the Munici pality by means of fresh elections if that is earlier". It will be seen that the notification only gives the conclu sions reached by the Provincial Government and does not~8 indicate the reasons on which the conclusions are based. The charge‑sheet cannot take place of the reasons. It is no know ing whether all the allegations enumerated in the charge were found to be substantiated. According to the rejoinder some of the allegations refer to acts during the regime of the Adminis trator. What actually influenced the Provincial Government in reaching the conclusions formulated in the notification could only be determined from the reasons if they had‑ been incorpo rated as required by law in the notification, Absence of reasons makes it impossible to judge whether supersession is based on relevant or irrelevant considerations. This is why section 219 insisted on disclosure of reasons. We have come to the conclusion that the supersession ordered by the Provincial Government is bad because of failure A of the Provincial Government to comply with the provisions of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. Some other points have also been urged on behalf of the petitioner but in view of what we have said earlier it is not necessary to go into them. The result is that the writ petition succeeds. Let writs of mandanus and certiorari issue as prayed in the petition. The respondent shall bear costs of the petition. A. H. Petition accepted.