Find a Lawyer

Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1980)--

-- Rule 3 (2)-Meeting held in spite of service of notice short of seven days-Validity - Assistant Commissioner issuing notice on 13th August, 1981 for holding meeting on 20th August, 1981 to

consider no-confidence motion against Chairman - Notice served upon Chairman on 17th August, 1981 and upon two members on 14th August, 1981 and 17th August, 1981 respectively-Notice also affixed on Notice Board on 13th August, 1981-Held, service of notice on Chairman and two members short of seven days before meeting will not invalidate meeting and not necessary that notice be issued and served upon members seven days before meeting.

Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 30th May, 1982.

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN. J.-Through this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order of 1981, Ahmad Hussain petitioner has challenged the legality of meeting convened to consider the motion of no-confidence against him and the consequent memo. No. 2711/AC, dated 26th August, 1981 declaring that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner (Chairman) Union Council No. 15 Vehari, has been passed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was elected as Chairman of Union Council on 20th December 1979 requisition to consider the motion of no-confidence was made on August, 1981 whereupon Assistant Commissioner, Vehari, respondent No. 1, issued notice on 13th August, 1981 for holding a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence on 20th August, 1981. This notice was served upon the petitioner on 17th August 1981 and two other Members namely, Muhammad Akram and Ahmad Khan on 14th August, 1981 and' 17th August, 1981, respectively.

3. The learned counsel therefore, contends, that this was not a valid notice as required by rule 3 (2) of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980, and as such the entire proceedings are liable to be vitiated. The learned counsel has, however, conceded that the motion was carried by vast majority that 6 Members out of 7 Members had expressed no-confidence against the peti tioner. He, also admits that only one Member was absent at the time of meeting. For the proper appreciation of the contention of the learned counsel it would be convenient to quote the relevant rule. Rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice Chairman) Rules, 1980 reads as follows :-

Rule 3 : Convening of meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence. (1) The authority to who the requisition under rule 2 is made shall, within 15 days of the receipt of such requisition, con vene a special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no-confidence.

(2) A seven days' notice shall be given for a meeting convened under sub-rule (1).

(3)

(4) The notice of the meeting shall be published by affixing it on a Notice Board of the office of the Local Council and may also be made known to the members by any of the following means : -

(a) an advertisement or a Press Note in a Newspaper commonly read in the area of the Local Council ; or

(b) a Radio announcement ; or

(c) beat of drum ; or

(d) such other mode as may be considered appropriate by the Presid ing Officer. .

The careful reading would make clear that notice contemplated in sub-clause (4) shall be published by affixing it on a Notice Board of the office of the Local Council and as for Members, there is no provision that the same shall be served upon the party or the Members 7 days before the meeting. The language of rule 3 (4) that "notice of meeting may also be known to the Members by any of the following means, (a), , (b), (c), (d), as detailed above is not without wisdom. It is, thus, crystal clear that it is not necessary that notice should be issued and got served upon the Members 7 days before the meeting. The use of words shall' and may' in rule 3 (4) is not without significance and as such if the notice was served on the petitioner and two other Members short of 7 days before the meeting that will not invalidate the meeting wherein out of 7 Members 6 bad expressed no-confidence and only vote in favour of the petitioner appears to be his own vote. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notice was not affixed on the Notice Board on 13th August, 1981. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the notice was, in fact, affixed on the Notice ,Board on 13th August, 1981 and .this fact has not be n controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We further find that the notice which was axed on 13th August, 1981 on the Notice Board for holding a meeting on 20th August, 1981 was legal and proper notice as contemplated by rule 3 of the Punjab Local Council (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980.

4. In the instant case we find that the petitioner has lost the confi dence of the overwhelming majority. To our mind, it would be a bad exercise of the constitutional discretion to thrust upon the people concerned

an unwanted Chairman.

For what has been stated above it is not a fit case for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. This petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. .

K.M.A. Writ 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.