1992 PLP 1695 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑R. 3(2)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Motion of no confidence against Vice‑Chairman‑‑‑Meeting convened for 15‑8‑1991, was postponed on the intervention of High Court, which was seized of the matter, and on its direction Presiding Officer changed the same to take place on 19‑8‑1991, thus, beyond period of seven days clear notice to members of Local Council concerned‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Meeting to consider no‑confidence motion against petitioner Vice‑Chairman convened on 19‑8‑1991 being beyond seven days from the date of service of notice on petitioner on 10‑8‑1991, same did not suffer from any legal infirmity on that score. Farooq Amjad Mir for Petitioner. In this Constitutional petition order dated 15‑8‑1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Toba Tek Singh for summoning the meeting of the members of the Town Committee Pir Mahal on 19‑8‑1991 has been challenged.

2. Previous to this by order dated 7‑8‑1991 the meeting on the requisition of the members of the Town Committee Pir Mahal to insider `no‑confidence motion' against the Vice‑Chairman was convened for 15‑8‑1991. W.P. No.6781 of 1991 wits filed in which I observed that the notice to the Vice‑Chairman was served on 10‑8‑1991 whereas some of the members of the Town Committee were served on 11‑8‑1989, therefore, an order was passed that the meeting shall not be convened on 15‑8‑1991 as the law required that at least seven days clear notice be given to the person against whom motion was moved. I also passed an order that there is no bar for convening the meeting on 19‑8‑1991 or thereafter. The A.C:/Presiding Officer Toba Tek Singh changed the date of the meeting and the meeting was ordered to take place on 19‑8‑1991.

3. The main objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that seven days clear notice should again have been given to the petitioner before fixing the date for convening the meeting. In other words his argument was that on 15‑8‑1991 when this order was passed to convene the meeting on 19‑8‑1991, seven days clear notice should have been given to the petitioner before the meeting was held:

4. I am afraid the argument is plainly unsound. The meeting was previously convened for 15‑8‑1W1 which was found to be before the expiry of seven days notice served on the petitioner on 10‑8‑1991. Order was passed in W.P. No.6781 of 1991 filed by the petitioner that the meeting could be held on 19‑8‑1991 or thereafter. The petitioner did not object that for summoning the meeting afresh seven days clear notice should again be given to the petitioner. It is not a case where the meeting has been convened in the first instance. As a matter of fact it is a case where the meeting had already been convened on 15‑8‑1991 which has been postponed to 19‑8‑1991, therefore, the service of notice on 10‑8‑1991 on the petitioner would serve as a notice for convening the meeting on 19‑8‑1991. Since the meeting on 19‑8‑1991 if takes place is clearly beyond seven days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner on 10‑8‑1991, there, the meeting itself does not suffer from any legal infirmity on that score.

5. The writ petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./S‑16/L Petition dismissed.