Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD AASIM versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, FAISALABAD

Sections 89 (4) and 92 (5) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Councilors of the Motion Two of the Constitution Local Council, took action against the members of PTI against the memorandum, on which the applicants of the House took this action. Was challenged, remember the M movement M which was accepted by the High Court and under the notification in which the applicant was seated was found to have no legal authority and no legal effect. However, a new vote of no-confidence vote was allowed against them. Following the High Court decision pursuant to applicant law, one of the councilors filed a motion against the applicant, which was also successfully run at a meeting of the General House District Coordination Officer, then issued a notification. It was reported that the applicant ceased to take office, the second "remember the motion" and the notification was challenged by the majority of the voters and applicants for approval of the Motion of District Coordination by the present constitutional petition. The applicant issued by the officer has claimed that the pawns Local Government Ordinance of 2001 on the S 92 (5), Councilors, who were the "missing movement" against him, lost his seat of operations. Remember M against it Motion \ Remember Val against it Motion first Although previously set aside on \ Remember Motion, members were allowed to follow the law first. Remember that the Motion failed to fail, the provisions of section 92 (5) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001 when you need a advocate from Gambet lawyer