Find a Lawyer

Respondent

Writ Petition No. 2712 of 1982, heard on 17th October, 1982.

‑‑ S. 31(b)‑No‑confidence motion‑Motion of no‑confidence duly considered at meeting held on 24th July, 1980, and rejected‑‑More meetings held thereafter for about two years and members moving motion never objecting to same‑Motion made in May, 1982, held, would not fall within time provided by law and proceedings taken thereat and notices issued for convening a meeting on 14th June, 1982, without lawful authority.

Arif Iqbal Hussain for Petitioner.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 11th and 17th October, 1982.

GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑

The petitioner who is an elected Chairman of the Union Council, Alamgarh, Tehsil and District Gujrat had challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner to requisition a meeting for the 'No‑Confidence Motion' against him on 14th June, 1982. It was contended that as a meeting for another 'No‑Confidence Motion' had been convened and motion failed on 24th July, 1980, the subsequent motions had to be made within the time prescribed by section 31(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The contention of the learned counsel is that as according to law, apart from the first motion, a motion is deemed to have been tabled and rejected after every 6 months of the first motion, the next motion is to be made within six months of the last. According to the calculations, the next motion as this case can be made only on or after the 20th of September, 1982, and before the 19th October, 1982. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the motion tabled in May, 1982, cannot be considered to be a valid motion and the meeting convened for 14th June, 1982, was consequently, without lawful authority.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent states that no motion bad been tabled on 24th July, 1980, in accordance with law and, therefore, the one moved in May, 1982, shall be considered to be the first motion. Reliance is placed on Ishtiaq Ali Raja v. Assistant Commissioner (1), where it is laid down that unless a motion has been moved, rejected or accepted it cannot be urged with any force that it bars subsequent requisition.

(1) PLD 1982SC263

3. We have gone through the record to find that in pursuance to requisition, notices were sent to the various persons by the Secretary on 19t July, 1980. The date given therein was on 24th July, 1980 at 7.30 a. m. We have also seen the minutes and register of the Union Council, show that four persons attended the meeting. More meetings are shown t have been held for about 2 years thereafter but the members moving the motion never objected the same. We, therefore, accept the authenticity of the proceedings recorded in the register of, minutes and agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that a meeting was duly convened and motion rejected on 24th July, 1980.

4. In view of the above, the present motion made in May, 1982, would not fall within the time provided by law. The proceedings taken thereat are, therefore, without lawful authority. Consequently, the notices issued for convening a meeting on 14th June, 1982, have no legal effect.

The result is that this petition is allowed in view of the above, with no order as to costs.

K. M. A. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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