1982 PLP 2132 (CLC)

Naveed Rasool Mirza for Respondents, Nos. 3 to

12. Date of hearing : 28th February, 1982. GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑The learned counsel challenges through this petition the proceedings taken on a no‑confidence motion in this meet ing dated 12th October, 1981, of the members of Town Committee, Sillan wali, District Sargodha.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are! that respondents 3 to 12 made an application dated 25th July, 1981, to the Deputy Commissioner Controll ing Authority to table a motion of no‑confidence against the petitioner as the Chairman of the above Town Committee. It came up before the Deputy Commissioner who on 29th July, 1981, directed the Assistant Com missioner that a meeting of the Town Committee be held on, 6th August, 1981, to consider the same.

3. During the meeting, the petitioner raised an objection that the motion was premature in view of section 31 (3) of the Punjab Local Govern ment Ordinance. The Assistant Commissioner, who was presiding over the meeting sustained the objection and, threw out the motion. The respon dent made a representation before the Deputy Commissioner on 28th September, 1981. He reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed him to hold the said meeting. It is thereafter that the peti tioner filed the present writ petition on which an interim relief directing not to declare the result was granted.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as no notice for the meeting of 12th October, 1981, had been given to the members, the holding of the meeting is without lawful authority. This contention, however, is not correct in view of the notice placed by the petitioner on record as Annexure `G'. It is directed to the petitioner himself and is dated 1st October, 1981. The objection, therefore, has no merit whatever.

5. The learned counsel then submitted that as the motion has no been seconded by any one under rule 5 (2) of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No‑Confidence against Chairman and Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1980, the Presiding Officer could not have permitted the consideration of the motion. Support for this objection is sought from copy of the proceed ings where this aspect is particularly omitted. We however, would not rely on it as an omission to mention it in the record would not prove that the motion was not seconded. Further, this point has not been specifically raised in the petition and, therefore, nothing on it was said by the respon dents in their parawise comments. We would, therefore, presume that the meeting was conducted in accordance with law. In any case, as the petitioner and others had been given an opportunity to explain and as the motion was put to vote ultimately, and carried by all the other ten members present, in excluding the petitioner, any omission of the nature may only mean a technical omission.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that as the meeting has not been convened within the period as provided for in section 31 . (2) (3) of C the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, the motion shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected. He also drew an inference from a parallel provision in the Markaz Council Rules as they appear at page 385 of the second edition of the Punjab Local Council Laws by Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din, Advocate, but they are mere instructions and not rules and are meant for a body which is created under no law,

7. It is to be noted that the same question has already been considered by this Court in Ch. Barkat Ali v. Assistant Commissioner (P L D 1982 Lah. 83) to hold that no time limit is provided for the first motion of no confidence. The motion in this case is admittedly the first in line. We, therefore, follow with respect the judgment of this Court in view of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in The Province of East Pakistan v. Dr. Azizul Islam (P L D 1963 S C 296). The contention of the learned counsel that leave has already been granted by the Supreme Court would not entitle us to ignore the final decision of this Court already made on the same point.

8. The learned counsel then submitted that as a later amendment brought in on 7th June, 1981 adding sub‑rule (5), was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges in that case, we may ignore that judgment and proceed to decide this case on its merit. The amendment, however, has nothing to do with the question under discussion. Here the members did turn up and the motion was in fact moved. In view of the above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismis sed with no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Petitions dismissed