Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 3322 of 1982, decided on 11th August, 1982,.

‑‑‑ S. 29‑Punjab Local Councils (Conduct of Members) Rules, 1981, rr. 17 do 1:9 ‑ Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9‑Removal from office of Chairman‑Petitioner removed from office of Chairman for delivering speech .in violation of rr. 17 .& 19‑Contention that. speech can be interpreted differently than the way same was done by authorities, held, no ground for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction Finding of fact arrived at cannot be interfered with for reason that evidence on which finding was based is susceptible to different interpretation.

Shaukat Ali Malik for Petitioner.

The petitioner has been removed . from the office of Chairman of the Municipal Committee, Jaranwala by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 vide order dated 15th May, 1982 on the ground that he had delivered a speech which was violative of rules 17 and 19 of the Punjab Local Councils (Conduct .of Members) Rules, 1981. The petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department vide order dated 7th August, 1982. Hence, this Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the speech of the petitioner was not at all ‑violative of the rules 17 and 19 of the aforesaid Rules because the petitioner was neither encouraging encroachment' nor, indulging in political activity promoting 'interest of arty political party, defunct or otherwise, or of any group or faction ("or' omitted from book but is in the Gazette). He also contended that the orders are mala fide. W Abdul Waheed, Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad had initiated no‑confidence motion against the petitioner twice over which had fallen through and Mr. Javed Qureshi was acted as Magistrate under the Deputy Commissioner whose brother is the Secretary to the Government who has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner had defeated Mst. Shugufta Begum who was being supported by Kh. Habib Ullah and in the present election Kh. Habib Ullah is supporting a candidate other than the one petitioner is supporting and it is the maneuvering of Kh. Habib Ullah that the present proceedings have been taken.

3. Taking the last contention first the allegation of mala fides are wild and far‑fetched. D. C. had performed this public duty and Mr. Qureshi .had nothing to do. On merits, it was for the authorities to find out as to whether the speech made by the petitioner was violative o the rules. The speech of the petitioner had been tape‑recorded and transcribed. The petitioner admitted that he had made the speech. He has also annexed a copy of the same. Learned counsel has read that. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the specific can be interpreted differently than, the way it was done by the authoritie is no ground for interference in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction because a finding of fact arrived at cannot be interfered with for the, reason that the evidence on which the finding was based is susceptible to different interpretation.

4. In view of the above, no interference in exercise of the Constitu tional Jurisdiction is called for. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limnine.

M.. A. K. 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.