Find a Lawyer

‑‑ [As amended by Notification dated 18‑12‑1980]‑Meeting for no confidence motion against Chairman of Union Council‑Notification amending relevant rule, providing that such meeting be presided over by Assistant Commissioner instead of Vice‑Chairman, made on 18‑12‑1981 and published in Gazette on 21‑12‑1981‑Proceedings held under the chairmanship of Vice‑Chairman on 18‑12‑1980‑Held, cannot be nullified retrospectively by amendment published in Gazette on 21‑12‑1980.‑[Interpretation of statutes].

Abdid Ghana v. Muhammad Suleman and another P L D 1978 Lah. 897 and Muhammad Suleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani P L D 1978 S C 190 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑ Art. 199 read with Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No‑Confidence Against Chairman or Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1979‑Petitioner losing confidence of entire electorate‑Held, can hardly hope to succeed in constitutional petition requiring exercise of‑ discretionary jurisdiction.

Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.

Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8.

Date of hearing ; 9th June, 1981.

ABDUL SHARURYJL SALAIN, J.‑The petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Union Council No. 79, Chak No. 45/S. B., Tehsil and District Sargodha, on 20‑12‑1979. For consideration of a no‑confidence motion against him, a meeting of the council was held under the Vice‑Chairmanship of the Union Council on 18‑12‑1980 and all the members voted against him. He was thus unseated. He has filed this constitutional petition.

Learned counsel appearing far him has stated that the rule under which the Vice‑Chairman presided had been amended by the Notification dated IS‑12‑1980, whereby the Assistant Commissioner was to preside over the meeting for a no‑confidence motion against a Chairman of the Union Council, It is, however, admitted that the Notification was gazetted on 21‑12‑1980. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the publication in the gazetted on 21‑12‑1980, the Notification came into effect when it was made on 18‑12‑1980.

The contention has no force. A similar point arose in the case of Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Suleman and another (1) where after reference to various authorities, it was held that the Notification became operative from the day it was published in the official Gazette. The judgment, with approval, was upheld by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Suleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani (2). The matter is, therefore, clinched. On the day when the no‑confidence motion was passed against the petitioner, the amendment had not been published in the gazette and consequently could not retrospectively nullify the proceeding held in accordance with the then existing law. Moreover, these is no way of saying that the Notification made on 18‑12‑1980 in Lahore reached. Sargodha where the proceeding took place the same day. Further, the petitioner had lost confidence of the entire body of members whose Chairman he was. Having' lost the confidence of the entire electorate the petitioner can hardly hope toy succeed in a constitutional petition requiring exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to be put in an elected office. This petition is, therefore, dismissed) but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

(1) P L D 1978 Lah. 897 (2) P L D 1978 S C 190

Find a Lawyer Near You

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