Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 515 of 1967, decided on 18th November 1969.

S. 57 read with Basic Democracies Order [P. O. No. 18 of 1959], Art. 22‑Constitution of Union Councils‑Powers of Provincial Government do not exhaust once Union Councils are constituted after formation of Electoral College but continue and Union Councils can be reconstituted by Provincial Government‑Article 22, Basic Democracies Order, 1959, held, no bar to exercise of powers of Provincial Government to reconstitute a Union Council‑Chairman, Union Council losing his office 'due to reconstitution of Union Council, held, can have no grievance on that account.

The petitioner, Chairman of Union Council, lost his office due to the reconstitution of the Union Council by the Provincial Government done for public convenience and to remove administrative difficulty. The reconstitution of the Union Council was challenged on the plea that according to the provisions of section 57 of the Electoral College Act, 1964 and Article 22 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959, read together, after the formation of the Electoral College once the Union Councils are constituted, the power conferred on the Provincial Government is exhausted and the Councils must continue for the fixed period of five years.

Held : There are no such limiting words to be found in section 57 of the Electoral College Act, 1964 from which it can affirmatively be said that the power could be exercised only once or that once the Union Councils are constituted they could not be re‑constituted. It is well recognised rule of interpretation that if an authority is vested with a power it can exercise it as many times as it deems fit unless there is any word in the statute to the contrary. No such word limiting the powers of the Provincial Government are to be found in section 57 of the Electoral College Act. The power to constitute carried with it by necessary impli cation the power to re‑constitute.

The contention that under Article 22 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 once Union Council is constituted it will continue for five years and the Provincial Government cannot interfere with this period is of no substance. It has not been shown as to how by mere re‑constitution, the life of the Union Council or the period of its continuance has been affected. By re‑constituting the said Union Council its period of continuance under Article 22 of .the Basic Democracies Order has neither been extended nor reduced.

If because of the reconstitution of the Union Council the petitioner ceased to be the Chairman, no grievance can be made on that account.

Kabiruddin Ahmad v. Government of East Pakistan and others Petition No. 6 of 1967 (unreported) rel.

A. Malek for Petitioner.

Anwarul Hoque Chowdhury for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Dates of hearing: 22nd October and 10th November 1969.

The petitioner Aftab Hossain was the Chairman of Joypur Union Council No. 1, P. S. Nawabganj Dinajpur. The Province of East Pakistan by a notification dated 14‑10‑67 split up Joypur Union Council into two Unions viz.

Joypur Union Counsil and Kushdaha Union Council. The result of the notification was that the petitioner ceased to be Chairman of the Joypur Union Council, which ceased to exist.

He therefore moved this Court in its writ Jurisdiction under Article 98 of the late Constitution of 1962 challenging the validity of the said notification splitting the Joypur Union Council into two and obtained the above rule.

The Province of East Pakistan appeared and opposed the writ petition by filing an affidavit‑in‑opposition contending that it was so done with a view to public convenience and for administrative facilities. The petitioner filed a reply to this.

Mr. Malek appearing for the petitioner has urged that if section 57 of the Electoral College Act, 1964 and Article 22 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 are read together; then we come to the inescapable conclusion that after the formation of the Electoral College once Union Councils are constituted, the power conferred on the Provincial Government is exhausted and the said Councils must continue for the fixed period of five years. The contention of the learned Advocate cannot be entertained inasmuch as there is no such limiting words to be found in section 57 of the Electoral College Act, 1964 from which it can affirmately be said that the power could be exercise only once or that once the Union Councils are constitute they could not be re‑constituted. It is well recognise rule of interpretation that if an authority is vested with a power it can exercise it as many times as it deems fit unless there is any word in the statute to the contrary. No such words limiting the powers of the Provincial Government are to be found in section 57 of the Electoral College Act. The power to constitute carried with it by necessary implication the power to reconstitute. This view has already been held by a Division Bench of this High Court in (Petition No. 6 of 1967) Kabiruddin Ahmad v. Government of East Pakistan and others decided, on 6th August 1968. The relevant passage may be quoted :‑

" . . . . We find ample power in the Provincial Govern ment under section 57 of the Electoral College Act to readjust the Councils and committees of the Basic Democracies by allotting the units from one to another. In the present case, the two units of Nalchity Town Committee were amalgamated with the neighbouring Baichandi Union Council, which is in the same police station, for administrative reasons."

In the present case the Provincial Government has filed an affidavit stating the reason for the splitting up the Joypur Union Council to be public convenience and administrative facilities. This case tallies substantially with the case referred to above. In the case referred to above two units of Nalchity Town Committee were separated and amalgamated with the neighbouring Baichandi Union Council and in the present case one Union Council viz. Joypur Union Council has been split into two Union Councils. This is nothing but readjustment of the existing Union Councils which the Provincial Government has ample power to do.

The contention of Mr. Malek that under Article 22 of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959 once a Union Council is consti tuted it will continue for five years and the Provincial Government cannot interfere with this period is of no substance. The learned Advocate has failed to show as to how by mere reconstitution, the life of the Union Council on the period of its continuance has been affected. By reconstituting the said Union Council its period of continuance under Article, 22 of the Basic Democracies Order has neither been extended nor reduced. Both the contentions of the learned Advocate have no substance.

The petitioner however has not alleged any mala fide on the part of the Government and if because of the reconstitution of the Union Council the petitioner ceased to be the Chairman, no grievance can be made on that account. The petition is dismissed and the rule is discharged without any order as to costs.

‑I agree.

A. E. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.