Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 34 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑12‑1984 in W.P.No. 4812 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑‑No Confidence Resolution against Chairman of local body passed by two‑third majority of total number of votes‑‑Unsuccessfully challenged in Constitu tional petition on ground of procedural irregularities‑‑Imposition of leader of a very thin minority on a body emerging out of electoral process, on ground of minor procedural technicality, considered improper‑‑Holding of fresh detailed factual enquiry in order to determine procedural irregularities in favour of petitioner, not called for in circumstances‑ Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Kh. M. Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1985.
.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 9‑12‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a no‑confidence resolution passed against the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of a local body, was dismissed.
Admittedly the resolution was passed by two‑third majority of the total number of votes. Twelve out of seventeen voted against the petitioner.
Learned counsel has contended however that there were procedural irregularities committed before the convening of the meeting as_ also during the meeting.
After hearing him we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal for two reasons. One, that it is not denied that twelve out of seventeen votes were in fact against the petitioner. It will not be proper to impose the leader of a very thin minority on a body which has emerged out of an electoral process on the ground of minor procedural technicality; and two, the points raised regarding procedural irregularity cannot be determined in favour of the petitioner unless entire findings of fact are set aside after holding a fresh detailed factual enquiry at this stage which in the circumstances is not called for.
Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and this petition is dismissed.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer