P L D 1983 Lahore 192 (PLP)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.-This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, namely, W. P. No. 1439 of 1982 and No. 1440 of 1982, filed by Khushi Muhammad, petitioner, against the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, Rao Muhammad Shabbir and Rao Jamshaid Ali, respondents, calling in question the joint order of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, dated 27-11-1982 passed on two separate petitions.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Khushi Muhammad, petitioner, is a member of Union Council No. 10, Tehsil and District Vehari. There are in all a total of fourteen members of this Union Council. On 15-4-1982, two no-confidence motions moved by the members of the said Union Council against Rao Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, ViceChairman, were rejected by the House. On 14-11-1982, Khushi Muhammad. petitioner, and eight others, members of the said Union Council, moved two separate written requisitions, signed by them and addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, respondent, calling upon him to convene a special meeting of the Local Council to consider motions of no-confidence against Rao Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, Vice-Chairman of the Local Council. On 22-11-1982, the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, by written intimation directed the E. A. C., Vehari, to convene a special meeting of the Local Council on 29-11-1982 at 10 a. m. in the office of the Union Council concerned to consider the motions of no-confidence against Rao Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, ViceChairman, of the said Local Council. In the meantime; it appears that on 21-11-1982, Rao Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, ViceChairman, by separate petitions had already moved the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, respondent, for the requisitions sent by the petitioner and others to be declared as invaild. Notices were issued to the parties for 27-11-1982 by the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, on which date arguments were heard and the said petitions were accepted by a joint order. The Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, held in his joint order that as the earlier motions for no-confidence previously moved on 15-4-1982 against Rao Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, Vice-Chairman, had failed on that date, the two requisitions' which were moved by the petitioner and eight other members of the Union Council on 14-11-1982 for convening a meeting to consider motions of no-confidence against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were time-barred ; by virtue of section 31. (2) and (3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Accordingly, it was directed that no further proceedings -e6GId be taken against the Chairman and ViceChairman concerned. Being aggrieved by the said joint order, Khushi Muhammad, petitioner, filed two writ petitions (W. P. No. 1439 of 1982 and W. P. No. 1440 of 1982) in the High Court challenging the same, which are now before us for disposal.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. It is admitted on both sides that the last special meeting of Union Council No. 10, Tehsil and District Vehari, convened to gonsjdet motions of no against Muhammad Shabbir, Chairman, and Rao Jamshaid Ali, Vice-Chairman, Of the said Union Council, was held on 15-4-1982, wherein the motions were moved, but failed. It is also admitted on both sides that Khushi Muhammad, petitioner, and eight other members of the same Union Council moved two separate requisitions on 14-11-1982 duly signed by them and addressed to the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, requiring him to convene a special meeting of the Local Council to consider the motions of no-confidence against the same Chairman and Vice-Chairman concerned: The only question that arises for consideration is whether the said two written requisitions were moved within time. Section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, is relevant in the said connection, which may be reproduced thus :- "31. (1) A Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall vacate office if a vote of no-confidence is passed against him in the manner prescribed by two-third majority of the total number of members of the Local Council electing him. (2) A motion of no-confidence against a Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office and .a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six months between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions. (3) A motion of no-confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of thirty days beyond every interval of six months provided under subsection (2) and in such a situation it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected for the purposes of subsection (2)." According to subsection (2 ,, the second or subsequent motion cannot moved except with an interval of six months "between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions". In short, the law requires that at least six clear months should intervene between the first and the second motion or between any two subsequent motions. The first no-confidence motion was moved on 15-4-1982. The six months' clear period which should intervene would, therefore, start from 16-4-1982 and ends on 15-10-1982 and the second motion can, therefore, be brought on or after 16-10-1982. With this calculation, it would appear, that between 15-a-1982 and i6-11-1982 or any date thereafter, there is a clear interval of six months. between these two dates. The meaning of the word "between" as given in Black's Law Dictionary with pronunciations (1979), Fifth Edition, can be cited in this connection with advantage. The meaning inter alia reads : "its a measure or indication of distance, this word has the effect of excluding the two termini. ,if an act is to be done, "between" two certain days, it must be performed before the commencement of the latter day. In computing the time in such a case, both the days named are to be excluded." In the instant case it is not an act to be done between two certain days, but a minimum interval of time that has to lapse between two certain events and this interval of time has to be a clear minimum period of six months. Thus, .the second motion cannot be moved earlier than 16-10-1982, according to. the language of subsection (2) of section 31' of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979: However, this is not the end. Subsection (3) of the same section gives the end point whereafter the second or subsequent motion cannot be moved. According to this subsection, the second or subsequent 1 motion becomes incompetent after the expiry, of thirty days beyond the interval of six months provided under subsection (2). The word "beyond" under subsection (2) in the instant case expires on 15-10-1982, the period of thirty days starting beyond this period of interval, would therefore start running from 16-10-1982. If we calculate 30 days from this date, the last date comes to 14-11-1982, whereafter the second requisition. for moving a vote of no-confidence would become incompetent. In the present case both the requisitions moved for the convening of the special, meeting to consider the motions of no-confidence against the Chairman and the ViceChairman respectively were moved on 14-11-1982. In these circumstances, the requisitions were moved in time. The joint order of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, dated 27-11-1982, holding the said two requisitions as time-barred, is, therefore, illegal and passed without lawful authority.

5. For the foregoing reasons, both these petitions are allowed and the joint order of the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, dated 27-I1-198 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and is set asid accordingly. The Assistant Commissioner, Vebari, shall fix a fresh date for convening a special meeting of the Local Council to consider th motions of no-confidence against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman concerned.

6. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.