1971 PLP 29 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑In pursuance to the no‑confi dence resolution passed on the 26th of June 1966, under the West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No‑confidence against Chair man) Rules, 1963, the petitioner was removed from the Office of Chairman, Union Committee No. 60 (Martin Quarters), Karachi. All the 13 members of the Committee attended, out of whom 9 voted in support of the no‑confidence motion and 4 against the resolution. Aggrieved by his removal, the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the Constitu tion inter alia on grounds that notices issued to some of the members were invalid inasmuch as they were short of the 7 clear days as provided by rule 3 (2). It was further contended that as the election of one of the members was set aside his participation in the voting had vitiated the proceedings of the meeting. Neither ground found favour with tree learned Judges who accord ingly dismissed the writ petition from which the petitioner seeks special leave to appeal. In support of the petition substantially the same grounds are urged by Mr. Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record, for the petitioner, which were as seen ruled out by the High Court. The facts found are that the notices of the meeting were issued to all the 13 members on 18‑6‑1966. Two of the members declined to receive the notices, while the third was not available at his home address. Fresh notices were, accordingly, issued to them, by post, on the following day and served on two of them on 21‑6‑1966. The third member was again not available at his residence. Though the notices did not conform to the time fixed in rule 3 (2), the fact remains that these members attended the meeting and participated in its proceedings. As mentioned earlier they also joined in voting on the no‑confidence resolution. The right to object to the validity of the meeting held on 26‑6‑19661 was thus waived by the members who had not received 7 clear day's notice as provided in rule 3 (2). We also concur in the view adopted by the High Court that since no penalty is provided in the rules for failure to serve the prescribed notice, the provi sions of rule 3 (2) are directory in nature and not mandatory as contended for by the petitioner. The second ground too has little force. A member vacates his seat only when a notification to that effect is published in the official Gazette. The fact that one of the members was removed after he had participated in the no‑confidence motion did not, therefore, invalidate the proceedings of the meeting. The High Court has, in the circumstances, rightly declined to interfere with the removal of the petitioner from the Office of Chairman, Union Committee No. 60 (Martin Quarters), Karachi. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.