Quorum

2025 CLC 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

R. 32 (3A)Appeal before Review CommitteeQuorum

Plea of the petitioner was that since one of the Members of the Review Committee was absent, thus, his appeal could not be rejected

Validity

Rule 32(3A) of Rules fixed quorum of 50% of its total Members to decide any appeal, thus, absence of one of the Members of the Review Committee would not affect the fate of decision, which otherwise was found within the bounds of law.

2014 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 4(1), 4(4) & 12Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority ("Authority")Meetings of the AuthorityQuorumDecisions of the AuthorityInvalidity of the decision of the AuthorityAppeal to High CourtReviewScope

Appellant impugned order of Authority passed in a review before it, on the ground that same was coram non judice as it had been passed by two members of the Authority excluding the Chairman, which was a violation of S.4(1) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002

Contention of OGRA on the other hand was that impugned order was valid under protection available by virtue of S.4(4) of the Ordinance and that since the Chairman OGRA was on forced leave, therefore, two members of the Authority sat on the review

Held, that no vacancy was in existence at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed and the Chairman OGRA was on forced leave, therefore, OGRA could not take benefit of S.4(4) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 in order to justify its decision

Record showed that three members of the Authority had rejected the appeal of the appellants, by a majority decision of two members, and in such a scenario, propriety demanded that review arising therefrom must also be heard and decided by three members of the Authority

Impugned order was therefore passed by an incompetent authority and was in violation of S.4(1) of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and was set aside.

2009 MLD 174 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.24Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionNo-confidence motionRe-calling of Zila NazimQuorum

On the request of respondents session of Zila Council was summoned so that no-confidence motion could be moved against Zila Nazim

Due to incomplete quorum, the session was adjourned

Validity

No stage for such action had come as the condition of required presence of members was not fulfilled

No proof was available to show that notices were issued to all members of council

No proof existed to show that the notices had been received by all members of Zila Council

Council being not in session, the notices to the members of Zila Council were required to be served upon them enabling them to attend the session

Out of 65 members only 7 members attended the session of whom two were proposer and seconder

No minutes of such session were placed on record

Mandatory requirement under S.24(7) of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, was that Zila Nazim had the right to address the members in his defence

Mere attendance of 7 members out of 65 would not give rise to presumption that motion for recalling Zila Nazim had automatically failed

Mandatory legal requirements as provided under S.24 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, for recalling of Zila Nazim had to be fulfilled which were lacking in the case

No illegality had been committed in adjourning the session of Zila Council

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

1981 SCMR 250 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 7 [as amended by Punjab Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 1975), S. 5]-Quorum

Administrative Tribunal having consisted of two members and a Chairman, disposal of case by two members, held, not warranted by law-Section 7 authorising disposal of cases by remaining two members (no Chairman having been then appointed) having been deleted by Ordinance IX of 1975, before disposal of case in hand reference to such section, held further, of no avail.