Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition No. 949 of 1963, decided on 17th December 1963.
‑---"Basic Democra cies" a Provincial subject‑Governor competent to make amend ment in Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959) the same though a Central Legislation‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Arts. 132, 225 & 79.
Where it was contended that the Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959) being a Central Law, the Governor of West Pakistan was not competent to amend the same Held, that under Article 225 of the Constitution (1962), the existing laws were to continue subject to any amendment that may be made by the appropriate Legislature and that "Basic Demo cracies" now being admittedly a Provincial subject the Governor was competent to legislate under Article 79, of the Constitution (1962).
, Art. 98‑Point neither raised in petition nor arising at time of hearing‑Court not concerned with consequences following that point.
Where, in a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution (1962), challenging the authority of the Deputy Collector in convening a special meeting of the Union Committee for moving a no-confidence motion against the petitioner, the Chairman of the Union Committee, it was contended that as a result of no -confidence motion, the petitioner might also be removed from the membership of the Municipal Committee and in that connection it was urged that the procedure for removal of a member of Municipal Committee being inconsistent to that prescribed for removal of a Chairman, Basic Democracies Union, the former procedure should prevail :
Held, that the point in question did not arise at the time and as the petition stands, the Court was only concerned with the notice issued by the Deputy Collector. The Court was not therefore, concerned with the consequences that might follow, if the resolution of no‑confidence is passed against the petitioner by the members of the Basic Democracies Union.
Nasir Aslam Zahid for Petitioner.
Abdul K. Shaikh Additional A.‑G., Ibadatyar Khan and
Muhammad Ashraf J. Umranl for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th December 1963.
-----This is an application under Article 98 of the Constitution by Syed Azizuddin, Vice‑Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Shahdadpur, against the notice of the Deputy Collector and Chairman, Municipal Committee, Shahdad-pur convening a special meeting on 7th December 1963 for moving a no‑confidence motion against the petitioner. It is not necessary to mention any facts in order to dispose of the contentions raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It was contended, in the first place, that the notice for convening the meeting had been issued by the Deputy Collector who cannot be said to be the Controlling Authority within the meaning of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. We admitted the petition on this point and fixed 17th December 1963 for final disposal of the petition. It now transpires from the counter‑affidavit filed by respondent No.2 that the mistake had been made good inasmuch as the meeting has been now convened by the Controlling Authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar. It is conceded by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the Controlling Authority is the Deputy Commissioner within the meaning of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959. In that view of the matter the contention raised by the learned Advocate that the notice issued by the Deputy Collector was bad in law does not arise.
2. In the next place, it was contended that the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 has been amended by the Governor of West Pakistan. It is urged in this connection that the Basic Democracies Order was passed by the President and, therefore, it was a Central law. On this basis it is urged that the Governor could not amend the same. There is not much force in this contention. Under Article 225 of the Constitution the existing laws were to continue subject to any amendment that may be made by the appropriate Legislature. Basic Democracies is now admittedly a Provincial subject. In that view of the matter the Governor was competent to legislate under Article 79 of the Constitution.
3. Lastly, it was urged that the petitioner is also, by virtue of his being the Chairman of the Union Committee, a member of the Municipal Committee, Shahdadpur and has also been elected Vice‑Chairman of that Committee. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as a result of the no‑confidence motion he might be removed also from being a member of the Municipal Committee. In this connection it is urged that this procedure prescribed for removal of a member from the Municipal Committee is different than the one prescribed for removal o the Chairman of the Basic Democracies Union. It is contended on this ground that there is inconsistency between the two legislations and, therefore the Municipal Ordinance should prevail. This point does not arise at present. As the petition stands, we are only concerned with the notice issued by Deputy Collector dated the 30th November 1963. We are not concerned with the consequences that might follow, if the resolution of no -confidence is passed against the petitioner by the members of the Basic Democracies Union Committee. No other point was urged. The petition is dismissed with costs, and the interim order is withdrawn.
S. Q./R. B. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer