1983 PLP 1005 (SCMR)
Ch. WALAYAT KHAN-Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1005 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. WALAYAT KHAN-Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1005 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1005 (SCMR) (Ch. WALAYAT KHAN-Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch: Akhtar AR, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th December, 1982.
- Ch: Akhtar AR, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 24-10-1982 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4204. of 1982). --Art. 185(3) read with Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 31 (2), (3) and Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1980, r. 3(2) Motion of no-confidence-Notice-Period of 30 days to be allowed only in case where no motion is moved-Point regarding validity of notice not raised before High Court-Held, cannot be raised before Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24‑10‑1982 passed in Writ Petition No. 4204 of 1982.
2. Petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Union Council Alam Garb, Tehsil and District Gujrat, and assumed his office as Chairman of the said Union Council on 17‑1‑1980. In July, 1980 a No‑Confidence Motion was moved by some members against the petitioner. A meeting was, there fore, convened on 24‑7‑1980 to consider the Motion but the same failed. Again in May, 1982 a No‑Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner on which the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat passed an order requisitioning a Meeting ' to consider the said No‑Confidence Motion on 14‑6‑1982. This order was challenged by the petition in the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 2712/82 on the ground that as a Meeting for the earlier No‑Confidence Motion had been convened but the Motion failed on 24‑7‑1980 the subsequent Motion has to be made within time pres cribed by section 31 (2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordnance, 1979. The petitioner succeeded and it was held by the learned High Court that the said motion did not fall within the time prescribed by law, the proceedings taken thereon were without lawful authority and the Notice issued for con vening the meeting on 14‑6‑1982 was of no legal effect.
3. Third time a No‑Confidence Motion was moved the next day after the aforesaid judgment of the learned High Court. Respondent issued a notice the same day on 18‑10‑1982 for 25‑10‑1982 for considering the Motion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under sub‑rule (2) of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No‑Confidence against Chairman pr Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1980 a seven days clear notice has to be given .for such a notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 21‑10‑1982, thus giving him only 4 days' time to contest the said Motion. Petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 4204 ‑of 1982 which resulted in the impugned order.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by: the learned counsel but we do not find any substance in it. The point regarding validity of the notice was not raised .before the learned Judges of the High Court. We also find that under section 31(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 it is only after six clear months that a. Motion could be tabled which can be done under section 31(3) of the said ordinance within 30 days which, in turn, means that if no‑ Motion is tabled; it shall be deemed to have bee moved and rejected. Consequently, 30 days period has to be allowed in a case where no Motion is moved. The, petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. S. Q. Leave refused.