1993 PLP 422 (CLC)
GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 422 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (A.J&K) |
| Bench Members | Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ. |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 422 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 422 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (A.J&K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 422 (CLC) (GHULAM RASOOL and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch: Muhammad Taj, Advocate assisted by Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants.
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for Respondent No.l
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 17‑10‑1992 in Writ Petition No. 77 of 1992). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15(1)‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Council (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman and Vice‑Chairman) Rules, R.8 (4)‑‑‑Motion of no confidence against Chairman of Local Council‑‑Presiding Officer (Vice Chairman) also casting his vote in favour of motion so as to constitute 2/3rd majority for removal of Chairman‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provision of S.15(1), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Ordinance, 1979, gives right to every member of a local council to exercise his vote in a no‑confidence motion in the prescribed manner which is laid down in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Council (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman and Vice‑Chairman) Rules, whereby Presiding Officer, if a member, would be entitled to cast his personal vote but would not have a casting vote‑‑‑Rule 8 (4) of the Rules, does not lay down anything inconsistent with S. 15 of the Ordinance of 1979‑‑‑Every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to and any construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute would be normally rejected‑‑‑‑Rule. 8 (4) of the Rules clarifies that although Presiding Officer could exercise his personal vote, but he would not exercise a vote in the nature of a casting vote‑‑‑Presiding Officer having cast his personal vote and not his casting vote to constitute 2/3rd majority, had acted in accordance with law‑‑ Removal of Chairman (respondent) was thus, valid. Law Lexicon by Wharton ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to and any construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute would be normally rejected.
Judgment & Decree
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated 17‑10‑1992 in Writ Petition No. 77 of 1992). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15(1)‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Council (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman and Vice‑Chairman) Rules, R.8 (4)‑‑‑Motion of no confidence against Chairman of Local Council‑‑Presiding Officer (Vice Chairman) also casting his vote in favour of motion so as to constitute 2/3rd majority for removal of Chairman‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provision of S.15(1), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Ordinance, 1979, gives right to every member of a local council to exercise his vote in a no‑confidence motion in the prescribed manner which is laid down in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Council (Vote of No‑confidence against Chairman and Vice‑Chairman) Rules, whereby Presiding Officer, if a member, would be entitled to cast his personal vote but would not have a casting vote‑‑‑Rule 8 (4) of the Rules, does not lay down anything inconsistent with S. 15 of the Ordinance of 1979‑‑‑Every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to and any construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute would be normally rejected‑‑‑‑Rule. 8 (4) of the Rules clarifies that although Presiding Officer could exercise his personal vote, but he would not exercise a vote in the nature of a casting vote‑‑‑Presiding Officer having cast his personal vote and not his casting vote to constitute 2/3rd majority, had acted in accordance with law‑‑ Removal of Chairman (respondent) was thus, valid. Law Lexicon by Wharton ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Every part of a provision of law has to be given effect to and any construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute would be normally rejected. Ch: Muhammad Taj, Advocate assisted by Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, Advocate for Respondent No.l Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1992.