Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 10100 of 1980, heard on 2nd April, 1983.

‑‑ R. 5(1) (2)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Six out of 12 members through written requisition signed by them requiring con vening of special meeting of Local Council to consider motion of no confidence against Vice‑Chairman, neither no‑confidence motion moved nor seconded by any member in such meeting as required by R. 5(1) (2)‑Proceedings, held, conducted in violation of relevant law and as such illegal and without lawful authority.

Sh. Zia‑ud‑Din Ahmad Qamar for Appellant.

Mrs Fakhar‑un‑Nisa for Respondents.

Tassaddiq Hussain Jilani, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1983.

‑This, is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, whereby Abdul Hafeez the petitioner wants this Court to declare the proceedings dated 7th September. 1980 with regards to motion of noconfidence against him, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are that Abdul Hafeez petitioner was elected Vice‑Chairman of Union Council No. 113 of Chat. 106; 10‑R Tehsil Khanewal. On 24th August; 1980 out of 12 members of Union Council, 6 members through written requisition signed by them required the convening of special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no‑confidence against the petitioner. Consequently, special meeting was convened on 7th September, 1980 and the motion having been passed by 2/3rd majority was carried. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the pro visions of Rule 5 of Punjab Local Council (vote of No‑Confidence Against Chairman or Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1980 have been violated, the proceed ings dated 7th September, 1980 may be declared illegal and without lawful authority.

As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents and the learned Assistant Advocate‑General have defended the impugned proceedings.

4. After having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to declare the impugned proceedings, to be illegal for the reasons that we find that the relevant provisions of Rule 5 have been violated inasmuch as at the time when meeting was convene under rule 3 neither no‑confidence motion was moved nor seconded by any member as required by sub‑rules (1) and (2) of Rule 5. It would convenient to reproduce the relevant provisions :‑

"5. Motion of no‑confidence.‑(1) At the meeting convened under rule 3, any member who has signed the requisition under sub rule (1) of Rule 2 may move the no‑confidence motion against the . Chairman or the Vice‑Chairman, as the case may be.

(2) if the motion has been seconded, it shall be open to the considera tion of the local council and any member may speak for or against the motion."

At this juncture, the proceedings taken at the meeting may also be mentioned with some advantage :

The proceedings detailed above when examined in the light of rule 5(1) and (2) of Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No‑Confidence Against Chairman or Vice‑Chairman) Rules, 1980 indicate that the proceedings were conducted in violation of the relevant provision's of law and as such, the proceedings at the meeting are illegal and without lawful authority.

5. For what has been stated above, the petition is allowed and the proceedings of no‑confidence dated 7th September, 1980 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

M. Z. M. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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