P L D 1968 Lahore 202 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑

The petitioner was elected Chairman of Union Council No. 87, Tehsil Samundri, District Lyallpur in January 1966. On the 18thJuly 1966, on a requisition made by certain members of the Union Council, the Controlling Authority, Lyallpur (respondent herein) issued notice for the convening of the Union Council under rule 3 of the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman) Rules, [1963 (hereinafter called the 1963 Rules) to consider the no‑confidence motion against the petitioner and appointed the Tehsildar, Sumundri to be the Presiding Authority for the meeting. On the 18th of July 1966, of the 12 members only 4 including the petitioner met at the appointed time and at the appointed place, the remaining eight having‑ stayed away: From the copy of the memorandum (Annexure `A') it appears that the meeting was adjourned without considering the motion because of a letter No. ADI 66/6773 dated the 17th July 1966 received by the Secretary, Union Council from the Controlling Authority in pursuance, of the direction issued by the Secretary of West Pakistan, in the Department of Social Welfare and Local Self Government vide letter dated the 16th July 1966, that till f4rther orders no motion of no‑confidence shall be moved or considered against any Chairman of a Union Council. Accordingly the four members who had met dispersed at the behest of the Secretary, Union Council. It appears, that even the Presiding Authority, namely, the Tehsildar, Sammundri did not attend the meeting, for the memo. dated the 18th of July 1966 is signed by the Secretary and not by the Presiding Authority; otherwise, he should have had signed it.

2. It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that the 1963 Rules under which the requisition was made by the members of the Union Council owing to which the meeting was convened for the 18th July 1966 had, in the meantime, been rescinded by the Governor vide Gazette of West Pakistan, Extraordinary Notification No. BDI‑3‑17/63, dated the 20th July 1966. Therefore, it appears that the above direction of the Secretary, Government of West Pakistan in the Department of Social Welfare and Local Self‑Government, which was conveyed to the Secretary, Union Council on the 17th of July 1966 was issued in anticipation of the rescission of the 1963 Rules by the Provincial Government.

3. On the 18th March 1967, a fresh set of rules called the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman) Rules, 1967, was brought in force by the Provincial Government under Article 89 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 read with Articles 1l and 12 ibid. The new Rules inter alia, provided that the requisition for no‑confidence motion against a Chairman of a Union Council shall not be made by less than two‑third of the members constituting a Basic Democracy and the motion shall be deemed to have been passed by a like majority, by a secret vote.

4. The new Rules being at variance with the 1963 Rules on the 7th The new Rules being at variance with the 1963 Rules, on March 1967, the Controlling Authority, on another requisition made by two‑third of the total members of the Union issued a notice for a special meeting to be held on the 27th March 1967, at 10 a.m. in the office of the Union Council to consider the no‑confidence motion against the petitioner and appointed the Assistant Director, Basic Democracies, Lyallpur to be the Presiding Authority for to meeting. In pursuance of this fresh requisition, the meeting was held on the 27th March 1967, at the appointed place, which was attended by eight out of twelve members, the petitioner along with other three remaining absent from the meeting. The vote of no‑confidence was moved and passed by the requisite majority in the absence of the petitioner. A copy of the proceedings at this meeting is Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. Later at another meeting of the Unio1Z Council held on the 10th April 1967, Karim Khan, respondent No. 3 was elected as the Chairman of the Union Council.

5. The petitioner has moved this writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution to call in question the passage of no‑confidence motion against him on the 27th March 1967 and the election of respondent No. 3 on the 10th April 1967, as his successor‑in‑office as being "absolutely illegal, ultra vires and without lawful authority".

6. It may be observed at the outset that the election of respondent No. 3 as the successor Chairman stands or falls with the validity or otherwise of the petitioner's removal from office of the Chairman of the Union Council in consequence of the vote of no‑confidence passed against him on the 27th March 1967. The petitioner's Darned counsel challenged the validity of the second requisition for no‑confidence motion against the petitioner and the consequential proceedings on the 27th of March 1967, ending in no‑confidence motion against him, solely on the basis of the Basic Democracies Order (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance 1967 (III of 1967) which inter alia amended clause (5‑A) of Article 11 of 1959 Order which provided for a vote of no‑confidence against the Chairman. Clause (5‑A) as amended by the 1967 Ordinance reads as follows:‑-- "The Chairman of a Union Council shall vacate office if a vote of no‑confidence is passed against him in the prescribed manner by two‑third majority of the total members of the Union Council provided that‑ (a) a motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of twelve months of the election as Chairman; and (b) where a motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman has been moved and has failed, whether before or after the coming into force of the Basic Democracies Order (West Pakistan Amendment) Ordinance, 1967, no similar motion shall be moved against him before the expiry of twelve months from the date such motion was moved. Explanation.‑For the purpose of this clause, a motion of no confidence shall be deemed to have failed, if, at a meeting to consider the motion, it failed to secure the requisite majority of votes in its favour or was not moved for want of quorum at the meeting or for any other reason." It was argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the earlier motion of no‑confidence against the petitioner had failed on the 17th March 1967, within the meaning of the Explanation to proviso (b) set out above, because only four out of twelve members of the Union Council had attended the special meeting. Vide rule 3(3) of the 1963 Rules, the quorum for such meeting being two‑third of the total number of members of the Basic Democracy the motion against the petitioner failed for want of quorum and no fresh motion of no‑confidence was admissible against the petitioner for a period of one year from the 18th of July 1966 under the new dispensation. As pointed out already, on the 18th July 1966 only four members, including the petitioner, apparently came to attend the meeting as originally notified. But it is wholly wrong to suggest that the motion failed because of want of quorum for, in fact the meeting was adjourned on the 17th of July 1966 in pursuance of the direction issued by the Provincial Government in anticipation of the rescission of the 1963 Rules under which the meeting was originally notified to be convened. Indeed, there was no meeting of the Union Council as such on the 18th of July 1966. Even the Presiding Authority did not attend and in his absence the memo. was drawn and signed by the Secretary, Union Council, who recorded the presence of those who had come in pursuance of the earlier notice and also explained the reason why the Council could not meet. Thus it is wrong to suggest that the motion of no‑confidence against the petitioner failed because of want of quorum. Therefore, on the material placed on the record, we are of the opinion that there was no meeting of the Council on the 18th of July 1966 to consider the no‑confidence motion against the petitioner and therefore there was no question of the failure of motion of non confidence against the petitioner under proviso (b) above. Consequently the Explanation to the proviso could be unavailing to the petitioner. What actually appears to have happened was that the requisition for the consideration of no‑confidence motion against the petitioner proved abortive because of the supervening event, namely, the Provincial Government's decision taken in anticipation of the rescission of the 1963 Rules.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, based his argument on the final expression "or for any other reason" in the Explanation and argued that these words are of widest amplitude and therefore cover the petitioner's case, for the fact remains that no‑confidence motion moved in July 1966 against the petitioner ended in a failure and the reasons or causes for such failure are hardly of any consequence for in any event the case is covered by the all embracing expression at the end of the Explanation. The argument must in our opinion fail for more than one reason. For one thing, the Explanation is not a substantive provision. It is merely an aid to the interpretation of proviso (b) to clause (5‑A). Proviso (b) upon its plain reading postulates, firstly, the meeting of the Council for the consideration of a vote of no confidence and secondly, failure of the motion, before a Chairman can secure immunity from a similar motion for a period of one year. In other words, existence of these two conditions is a sine qua non for any immunity under the proviso B and if these conditions are wanting as in the instant case, the Explanation will be unavailing. This is made further clear by the wording of the Explanation itself, according to which a motion of no‑confidence will be deemed to have failed,‑-- "If, at a meeting to consider the motion it failed to secure the majority." Because of the events referred to above the meeting which was actually notified for the 18th July 1966 was cancelled on the 17th July 1966 and therefore there was no Meeting on the 18th July 1966 to consider the no‑confidence vote against the petitioner and therefore there was no failure of no‑confidence motion."

9. Furthermore, the general expression "or for any other reason" at the end of the Explanation, follows, the particular expressions, namely, the failure of the motion for want of requisite majority or failure to secure the motion for want of C quorum and therefore must on the well‑known principle ejusdum generis be understood in the qualified sense of the preceding expressions all being germane to the same subject. If we were to understand the last omnibus expression in its primary sense without any qualification, it will lead to some strange results. For instance then it will follow as a necessary corollary that a Chairman who by rioting and show of force prevents the Council to meet to consider the vote of no‑confidence against him, must be given the advantage of the deeming provision in the Explanation. Such a conclusion verges on absurdity and we have no hesitation to reject it. Therefore, the words "or for any other reason" refer to reason analogous to the reasons that precede these words and would not cover a case like the present when there was no meeting.

10. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.