1989 CLC2160 (PLP)

2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties as well as respondent No.l in person. The learned counsel for petitioner in support of the petition has raised following points:‑ Firstly, that the meeting convened for 25‑4‑1989 will be deemed to have been convened on the requisition of the Bashir Ahmad as well as that of the petitioner: Secondly, that once meeting was convened, the said Bashir Ahmad had no authority or right to withdraw his request for summoning the meeting: Thirdly, that the respondent No.2 and for that purpose even respondent No. l has no jurisdiction to cancel the meeting.

3. On the other hand, respondent No.l has maintained that since the mover put in an application for withdrawal of his petition, therefore, the meeting was rightly cancelled. It was added that respondents Nos.l and 2 acted strictly it accordance with law and there was no mala fide on their part.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that since meeting was convened only on the requisition of Bashir Ahmad, therefore, the same was rightly and legally cancelled when said Bashir Ahmad etc. put in an application for withdrawal of their move. 1t added that there could only be one requisition at a time and the request of the petitioner being later in time was rightly not considered. The learned counsel for petitioner in this behalf has referred to the case of Khushi Muhammad v. Assistant Commissioner Vehari and another (P L D 1983 Lahore 192) and argued that since the motion for no‑confidence has failed, therefore, there cannot be a fresh motion in next six months.

5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for parties and respondent No.l. Before proceeding any further, I would like to refer Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No‑Confidence against Chairman or Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1980. The meeting for the purpose of vote of no confidence is convened under Rule 2, which reads as under:‑ "

2. Requisition for convening a meeting for moving a vote of no confidence.‑(1) Not less than one half of the total number of members of a local council may by a written requisition signed by them, require the convening of a special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no‑confidence against the Chairman or the Vice‑Chairman of the local council. (2) The requisition under sub‑rule (1) shall be addressed to‑‑ (a) the Divisional Commissioner concerned in the case of municipal corporation or zilla council; (b) the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the case of a municipal Committee or a town committee, and (c) the Assistant Commissioner concerned in the case of a Markaz (3) ‑‑‑‑‑‑ (4) For the purpose of moving a requisition under sub‑rule (1) a mere expression of no‑confidence without assigning any reason therefore, shall be sufficient. Explanation.‑‑For the purpose of these Rules, the expression "total number of members" shall mean the total number of elected members constituting the local council at the relevant time whether as representatives of the Muslims or those of non‑Muslims or of peasants, workers and women". It is clear from the rule that there is no restriction on number of requisitions, therefore, there can be at a time more than one requisitions for convening the special meeting of the Local Councils. The requirements of a valid requisition are:‑ (i) that requisition should be in writing; (ii) it shall be signed by not less than half of the total members of local council; and (iii) it should require the convening of special meeting of the local council to consider motion of no‑ confidence against the Chairman or Vice Chairman.

6. Now so long as a requisition or move complied with all these requirements, then a meeting has to be convened. This is of course subject to other provisions specially Section 31 of Punjab Local Government Act, with E which we are not concerned at the moment. In this case there were two requisitions before respondent No. 1 when the meeting was convened, therefore, it was incumbent upon him to convene meeting in persuance of both the requisitions. He could not have given preference to the requisition of Bashir Ahmad etc. because it was moved a day earlier. The respondent No. 1 seems to be conscious of this legal position, therefore he incorporated in his impugned order dated 17‑4‑1989 that petitioner has consented to the carrying of the motion on the application of Bashir Ahmad and others, and immediately thereafter observed that application of Dur Muhammad etc. should also be placed on file. This is a self‑contradictory and self‑destructive plea. I have called upon the respondent No. 1 to show as to where the consent of the petitioner was recorded. He conceded that he did not deem it necessary to record his statement. I have very strong reasons to disbelieve his plea, specially in face of the earlier Writ Petition. Therefore, the meeting convened vide order dated 17‑4‑1989 by the respondent will be' deemed to have been convened on both the requisitions. It is needless to add here that the use of word requisition in rules will include in its fold requisitions.

7. Now coming to the second arguments, the moment the meeting was convened on the requisitions. There was nothing for Bashir Ahmad or anybody else to withdraw the requisition. The requisition has been accepted and meeting called. It was a past and closed transaction. The legal provision for holding special, meeting has been set in motion and the same could not have been stopped without reaching its logical conclusion. This is not all. The respondent No. 2 was directed to hold the special meeting and he had no authority or jurisdiction to cancel the same. He cannot sit m the judgment to the orders passed by respondent No.

1. Similarly Bashir Ahmad etc. has also no authority to set aside the order of respondent No.

1. The respondent No. 2 was under a legal obligation to convene the meeting as directed by respondent No. 1 and he has nothing to do with the request of the members. This way respondent No. 2 flagrantly disobeyed the orders and directions of respondent No.

1. I am not saying that it was a pre planned. In this behalf reference may be made beneficially to the provisions of Rule 5, which reads as under:‑ "

5. Motion of no‑confidence.‑‑(1) At the meeting convened under rule 3, any member who has signed the requisition under sub‑rule (1) of Rule 2, may move the no‑confidence motion against the Chairman or the Vice Chairman, as the case may be. (2) If the motion has been seconded, it shall be open to the consideration of the local council and any member may speak for or against the motion. (3) No member shall speak on the motion more than once. (4) The Chairman or the Vice‑Chairman against whom a motion of no confidence has been moved shall have the right to offer a personal explanation either verbally or in writing, and where a written explanation is offered, it shall be circulated amongst the members and shall form part of the record of the proceedings of the meeting. (5) If at the meeting convened under rule 3: (i) No member turns up; or (ii) no member moves the no‑confidence motion, the no‑confidence motion shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected." It is clear from the rule that once the meeting has been convened, the same cannot be cancelled and in case the conveners of the meetings are not interested in the requisition, they will adopt either of the alternatives provided in clause 5 of this rule. It is, therefore, evident that once special meeting has been convened on the requisition, then it has to be concluded under either of the provisions of rule 5, reproduced above.

8. The proposition, if considered stepwise, becomes more clear. The first step is the requisition by members as provided for in rule 2, once the requisition is considered and meeting is convened by the returning officer, then the members lose control over the requisition, because it has borne its fruits, culminated into 1 the convening the special meeting or it has been acted upon. I may in this behalf refer to the judgment, in the case of Rash id Khan Malik v. Mrs. Zubaida Rashid Khan and another (1984 C L C 2851). Now if the members responsible for the requisition can still get back the requisition, then it will amount to frustrating the purpose of statute. This way Chairman or Vice‑Chairman, who had lost the 1 confidence of the house may perpetuate his office by adopting such techniques. This of course is not the object of law. Then comes holding of meeting, which is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer.

9. The last step in the series is move of no‑confidence motion. The Presiding Officer, entrusted with duty to preside over the meeting, has no jurisdiction or authority to cancel the meeting. On the one hand his such action J will be against direction of his superior and on the other hand in violation of the provisions of these rules. His position is just that of a silent spectator and object is to conduct the meeting and nothing more.

10. I, therefore, hold that neither the said Bashir Ahmad etc. had any right to withdraw the requisition after special meeting was convened. Their requisition had matured and acted upon. In other words, they have lost right to repent. On the other hand the respondent No. 2 who was directed by respondent No. 1 to preside over the special meeting on 25‑4‑1989 had no authority or jurisdiction to entertain the application as his duty commenced on 25‑4‑1989 from the start of the meeting as is clear from endorsement No.2 at the foot of the notice of meeting dated 17‑4‑1989 Anx.E/1. He had nothing to do with the pre and post meeting matters.

11. I, therefore, hold neither the requisition could be withdrawn by Bashir Ahmad etc. nor meeting could be cancelled by respondent No.2. It is more so because meeting will, as already held, will be deemed to have been convened on both the requisitions i.e. requisition by the petitioner and the requisition by Bashir Ahmad etc. 11‑A. This is not all. The rule 2 reads that not less then half of the members of Local Council can by written requisition require the convening of special meeting. Once such requisition is made the individual signatories have no JK right to represent the others. I am fortified in my view by the provisions of Rule 5, wherein it is provided as under:‑ (1) Any member who has signed the requisition may move no confidence motion. There is no distinction of a signatory and a mover. The legislature in its wisdom has used the word any member. I will say the rationale behind is to check and discourage corrupt practices; (2) The motion has to be seconded, by a member. who has signed the requisition. (3) Every member shall speak once on the motion, there is again no distinction or preference given to any so‑called `mover'. (4) The Chairman or Vice‑Chairman may offer their explanation which if in writing shall be circulated amongst the members. (5) If no member turns up or any member moves no‑confidence motion, then the motion shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected." This clause clinches the whole matter. I have referred to all the clauses to show that there is nothing of the sort as a `mover' of a requisition, and its withdrawal.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent 3 has pointed out that the application for withdrawal of the requisition was moved by all the members, who had signed the requisition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has appended affidavits of Khadim Hussain, Nazir Ahmad and Mukhtar Masih to show that said signatures were forged and fabricated. This controversy can further be pressed as an argument in support of my conclusion. Because if right of withdrawal is conceded then invariable there will be such allegations in every case. This will side track the main issue for an indefinite period and defeat the purpose of law.

13. Be as it may be. The question arises whether members have any authority or right to get the meeting convened by the Returning Officer cancelled? In my humble opinion this is not possible and this is not the object of law. The law has taken care of both sides. If on the one hand law has checked the corrupt practices by concluding the matter withholding of meeting and not permitted short circuiting the whole process. On the other hand law has also given free hand to the members not to press the vote of no‑confidence but they have to follow rule 5.

14. The role of respondents 1 and 2 cannot but he appreciated in the matter. This Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 1648/88 filed by the petitioner issued a direction to respondent No. 1 to deal with the requisition for no confidence in accordance with law to discharge his legal obligations, but without any result. These institutions are nurseries of democracy. The administration or members should respect the will of the house. If the house denounces its confidence earlier reposed in a Chairman or Vice‑Chairman, then they should step down in a sporting spirit rather than cling to the office illegally. No doubt it is easy to believe in democracy but difficult to practice it. The administration, to make things easy, should act independently and carefully within the sphere allotted to it by the law. They should respect the will of the people. This pre supposes that they should act strictly in accordance with law because law is also will of the people. They should not add to the life to the Chairman or Vice Chairman, who has lost the confidence of the house. This way they will be doing great service to the nation and to these institutions.

15. The upshot of the above discussion is that I allow this petition, set aside the impugned order of respondent No. 2 dated 24‑4‑1989 canceling the meeting and direct the respondent No. 1 to reconvene the meeting in pursuance of his order dated 17‑4‑1989. The meeting shall be deemed to have been convened on the requisition moved by Bashir Ahmad and others as well as petitioners and others. I have directed the respondent No. 1 to proceed accordingly. M A.K./D‑43/L Petition allowed.