P L D 1967 Dacca 781 (PLP)

Dates of hearing: 30th and 31st March 1967. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner is Ex‑Chairman of the Rajbari Town Committee in the District of Faridpur and he has challenged a notice issued by the Controlling Authority dated the 17‑6‑66 convening a special meeting of the Rajbari Town Committee for considering a resolution of no‑confidence against the petitioner on 25‑6‑66 as well as the resolution of no‑confidence passed in the said meeting. It appears that the requisite number of members of the Town Committee sent a requisition to the petitioner who was Chairman of the Town Committee to convene a special meeting for the purpose of considering a resolution of no‑confidence against him. It is admitted that although the petitioner received this notice, he never called the meeting as he was required to do in accordance with the East Pakistan Local Councils (Vote of No‑confidence) Rules, 1963. The petitioner has unsuccessfully attempted to by‑pass the requirements of the rules by saying that some of the members who sent a requisition bad ceased to be members of the Committee inasmuch as they failed to perform without reasonable cause for a continuous Period of six months any of their functions as such member under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force in terms of section 53(3) of the Electoral College Act, 1964. It has, however, been admitted on behalf of the petitioner that no proceeding was taken under section 53 of the Act actually disqualifying any one of the aforesaid members. To resume the facts of the case, the Controlling Authority, on the failure of the petitioner to convene the meeting he was required to convene under the aforesaid rules, issued a notice dated 17‑6‑66 convening a special meeting on 25‑6‑66 for considering the no‑confidence resolution against the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly received this notice on 20‑6‑

66. The petitioner has now challenged the validity of this notice issued by the Controlling Authority as well as the proceedings of the meeting held on 25‑6‑66 and the resolution of the no confidence passed against him on the grounds that he was not served with the notice seven clear days prior to the meeting and that no agenda of the meeting accompanied the notice. It appears from the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was actually served with the notice of the Controlling Authority on 18‑6‑66, but the petitioner for reasons best known to him had put the date as 20‑6‑66 while acknowledging the receipt of the said notice. The mistake was soon discovered and the petitioner was approached by the peon who had served the notice to correct the date and the petitioner in fact corrected the date and initialled it as evidence of the alteration in date. In support of this statement the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents have produced before us affidavits sworn by the peon in question as well as by certain other persons in whose presence the notice had been served upon the petitioner on 18‑6‑

66. In these circumstances we have no hesitation in accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the notice in question was actually served upon the petitioner on 18‑6‑

66. In any event, as this Court had already held in several earlier cases, the provision about time in rule 3 of the said rules is directory in nature and unless it is established that the petitioner has been prejudiced in any way mere omission to serve the notice within the time mentioned in the rule will not vitiate the meeting held in accordance with the notice. It does not appear that the petitioner had any time previous to the meeting held on 26‑6‑66 ever complained to anybody that the notice received by him was inadequate. So far as the agenda of the meeting is concerned, it was specifically mentioned in the notice that the meeting was convened to consider a resolution of no‑confidence against the petitioner and therefore, that was the only agendum of the meeting. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the petitioner. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs which we assess at two gold Mohurs. ABDUL HAKIM KHAN, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule discharged.