P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH, J.--‑This is a writ petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari or any appropriate writ, and arises under the following circumstances: " The petitioner was elected President of the Sukkur Municipality after it was restored in 1952. The Municipality exercised its powers and duties till it was again superseded by the then Sind Government on 6th April 1955, under section 219 (1) of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, on the ground of favouritism, abuse of power, etc." The order dated 6th April 1955, superseding the Munici pality has been challenged on several grounds by Mr. Pirzada, the learned advocate for the petitioner. Though the order has been challenged in the petition on several grounds, the ground urged before us was that the order dated 6th April 1935, does not comply with the mandatory provisions of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner was that the order superseding the Municipality does not disclose the reason for supersession. In support .of this contention, reliance was placed on subsection (1) of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, which reads as under :‑ "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 or abuses its powers, the Provincial Government may, after giving the municipality an opportunity to render an explana tion, by an order published, with reasons, therefore, in the Official Gazette declare the municipality to be incompetent 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." It has been contended on the language of the above provision of law, relying on the words '' reasons therefore " that the Provincial Government was bound to disclose the reasons for declaring the Municipality to be incompetent or in default, or to have exceeded or abused its powers, as the case may be. There is great force in this contention. Mr. Khamisani, the learned advocate who appeared for the respondent, tried to meet this contention in two‑fold ways. In the first place, he submitted that the disclosure of reasons was not mandatory, but only optional. There is no force in this contention. Reading the language as reproduced above of subsection (1) of section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, it is clear that if the Provincial Govern ment 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. In the second place, it was contended that the order dated 6th May 1955, does disclose the reasons. In fact, this was the main contention of Mr. Khamisani, the learned advocate for the respondent. He relied on the words " And whereas in the opinion of Government the Munici pality of Sukkur has been found incompetent in the performance of the duties imposed upon it under the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925 ; And whereas the Municipality was given an opportunity to explain the charges against it and to show cause why it should not be superseded ; And whereas the said Municipality of Sukkur has in the opinion of Government failed to explain satisfactorily the charges laid against it relating inter alia to: (1) Favouritism ; (2) Abuse of Powers ; (3) Non‑payment of Municipal dues by some of the Councillors ; (4) Negligence in the performance of duties ; (5) Unsatisfactory financial position." The learned advocate urged that the reason has been supplied by the Government in the words "failed to explain satis factorily". There is no substance in this argument. This, to our mind, cannot be said to be the reason for holding that the Municipality had abused its powers, has indulged in favouritism, etc. This, at best, can be said to be the conclu sion, and not the reason on which the Government had based its conclusions. In the case of Pir Ali Ahmad Khan v. The Province of West Pakistan (1), Writ Petition No. 87 of 1955, under similar circumstances as in the present case, where section 179 of the Sind District Municipal Act, 1901, was under consideration the language of which is similar to that of subsection (1) oft section 219 of the Sind Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, Division Bench of this Court in a well‑considered judgment was of the opinion that the disclosure by the Government of the reasons was mandatory, and the non‑compliance of the same "must necessarily vitiate the order of supersession". We respectfully, agree with the view taken in that case. We would, for the reasons given above, quash the order of supersession dated 6th April 1955, and direct the respondent to restore the petitioner and the Municipality to their respective offices. Writs of mandamus and certiorari to issue as prayed for in paragraph 19 (i) of the Writ Petition. A.H. Order quashed.