Find a Lawyer

"Writ Petitions Nos. 1255, 1256 and 1257 of 1982, decided on 31st January, 1983.

‑‑‑ Rr. 6 & 9‑Notification No. SOA (S & M) XV‑9/79 dated 12^th March, 1981‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Market Committee‑Appointment and removal of members‑Names of petitioners not included in panel approved by District Council and their appointment as Members Market Committee not qualified Show‑cause notice, held, not necessary before their removal from membership.

Sarfraz Ahmad v. The Secretary, Government of Pakistan P L D 1968 Kar. 350 rel.

Noor Muhammad Khan Chandio for Petitioner.

Habib Ahmad Ansari for Respondent No. 1.

Riaz Anwar for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 31st January, 1983.

These 3 writ petitions Nos. 1255/82, 1256/82 and 1257/82 filed by Zafarullah, Malik Noor Muhammad and Ahmad Bakhsh petitioners res pectively are under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby they want this Court to declare Notification No. SOA (S & M) XV‑21/80, dated 4th March, 1982 i. e. Annexure 'B' and Notification No. S C A (C & M) XV‑21/80, dated 22nd June, 1982 Annexure C', to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Since these writ petitions arise from the same notifications and involve identical matter, I propose to dispose them of through a Single judgment.

2. The facts leading up to these writ petitions in brief are that the 3 writ petitioners through notification No. SCA (C & M) XV‑21/80 i. e, Annexure C' were appointed as members of the Market Committee, Jehanian. They were, however, removed on 4th March, 1982 through Notification No. S C A (C & M) XV‑21/80 Annexure B' issued by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab Agriculture Department. By order of Governor of the Punjab and through Notification No. SCA (C & M) XV‑21/80 dated 22nd June, 1982 i. e. Annexure 'C', respondents Nos. 4 to 12 were appointed as members of the Market Committee, Jehanian.

3. The learned counsel has vehemently submitted that once the writ petitioners were appointed as members through a valid notification, they could not be removed without a show‑cause notice and following proper procedure and that the respondents Nos. 4 to 12 have been appointed in violation of the legal provisions laid down for the appointment as members of Market Committee. Against this the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has vigorously defended the impugned notification where as Mr. Riaz Anwar the learned counsel for the respondents while seriously opposing writ petitions No. 1256 and W. P. No. 1257 has half‑heartedly defended the case of Zafarullah, the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1255/82. The learned counsel relied upon Sarfraz Ahmad v. The Secretary, Government of Pakistan (P L D 1968 Kar. 350) to submit that the appointment of Malik Noor Muhammad and Ahmad Bakhsh was erroneous inasmuch as their names were not included in the panel approved by the District Council and as such no show‑cause notice was necessary.

4. The plain reading of Rules 6 and 9 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets (General Rules), 1979, as amended by Notification No. SOA (S & M) XV‑9/79, dated 12th March, 1981 make crystal clear that the District Council had to submit a panel of consumer/licensees and growers to the Government in consultation with Extra Assistant Director, Agricultural (Economic and Marketing Committees) and the licensees of the Notified Market Area. The document Annexure R/2' which has been placed on the record indicates that out of the writ petitioners only Zafarullah has been included in the panel approved by the District Council. I find that the names of Noor Muhammad and Ahmad Bakhah are not mentioned in that panel. Applying the case law laid down in the authority cited by the respondents, I am of the opinion that since Malik Noor Muhammad and Ahmad Bakhsh did not initially qualify their appointment as members, they cannot claim show‑cause notice as a matter of right. The case of Zafarullah petitioner is, however, distinguishable. Since his name has been included in the panel approved by the District Council therefore, his appointment through Notification Annexure 'A' being legal and valid, he could not be removed unheard. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions Nos. 1256 and 1257 of 1982 are dismissed. The W. P. No. 1255/82 is, hereby accepted. The notification of the removal a. e. Notification No. SOA (C & M) XV‑21 /80, dated 4th March, 1982 i. e. Annexure 'B' to his extent is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. As for notification Annexure B' pertaining to the appointment of respondents Nos. 4 to 12, no illegality appears to have been committed. Needless to add that this judg ment does not debar the future removal of Zafarullah writ petitioner in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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