Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 95. of 1983, decided on 19th March, 1983

(From the order dated 12‑12‑1982 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, passed in Writ Petition No. 1006 of 1982).

‑‑Art. 185 (3) read with Punjab Local Government Ordinance (V, of 1979), S. 31‑No‑confidence motion against Chairman‑Cannot be moved before expiry of six months from date of assumption of office nor can second and subsequent motion be moved except with an interval of six months between first and second motion‑Motion of no confidence moved against previous Chairman‑Held, cannot be taken into account in computing interval in regard to motion against succeeding Chairman.

Sanaullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha P L D 1982 S C 256 ref

S. M. Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 19th March, 1983.

The petitioner had succeeded to office of Chairman, Town Committee, Makhdoompur Pahoran, on 26‑10‑1981, the previous Chairman having been ousted by a vote of no‑confidence passed against him on 7‑9‑1981. However, a requisition for consideration of a no‑confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, too, on 11‑8‑1982,' for which purpose the Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala, convened a meeting on 25‑8‑1982. This was challenged by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court,. Multan Beach, but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 12‑12‑1982.

2. The contention raised before us, as had been raised before the High Court but repelled, is that as a vote of no‑confidence had been passed on 7‑9‑1981 against the previous Chairman, the motion against the petitioner being a second of subsequent motion within the meaning of subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the same was barred having been brought before the expiry of six monthly intervals.

3. Under section 31 of the Ordinance, a Chairman shall vacate the office if a vote of no‑confidence is passed against him in the manner prescribed. It has been further laid down in subsections (2) and (3) of this section as follows:

(2) A motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman or Vice‑Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office and a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six months between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions.

(3) A motion of no‑confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of thirty days beyond every interval of six months provided under subsection (2) and in such a situation it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected for the purposes of subsection (2)."

4. The law‑makers' intention, as can be gathered from the above provision of law is that no vote of no‑confidence can be moved against a Chairman before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of office, that after six months a resolution can be moved any time but once a resolution has been moved, then, subject to subsection (3), a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six month between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions. This Court has already expressed such view in Sanaullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha (P L D 1982 S C 256).

5. The contention that. a motion of no‑confidence moved against the previous Chairman is to be taken into account in computing the interval in regard to a motion against the succeeding Chairman is not supported by the provision of section 31. The words used in subsection (2), that is, "A motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman . . . . . shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office . . . . . (underlining'' is ours)" make it clear that the date of assumption of office, relevant for the motion, is of that very Chairman against whom the motion is moved and not of a previous Chairman. For, otherwise, since some time must elapse between a motion moved against a previous Chairman and the assumption of office by his successor, the succeeding Chairman may be confronted with a motion of no‑confidence even before he has completed six months of office as Chairman. Clearly such eventuality is not contemplated by the law. The petition has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.

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.