Find a Lawyer

Civil petition No. 406‑R of 1985, decided on 26th October, 1985.

(Against the Judgment and order, dated 6‑10‑1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.P. No. 3973 of 1985).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Show -cause notice by competent authority‑‑Challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court‑‑Petition dismissed as premature‑‑Objections raised in writ petition since related to legal and factual matters, it was appropriate that they were raised first before competent authority and dealt with by a speaking order‑‑Jurisdictional aspect of exercise of such statutory power could be examined in High Court thereafter‑‑High Court's order refusing to interfere in matter, held, justified‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

‑The petitioner who is the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Jalalpur Jattan, District Gujrat, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑10‑1985 whereby a Constitutional petition filed by him was disposed of with the observation that there was no final order yet passed and what was received by the petitioner was only a show‑cause notice and he could agitate before the competent authorities all the points which had been raised in the High Court.

On the 9th of July, 1984, a delegation of Municipal Councillors, Jalalpur Jattan, called on the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, and made a number of allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to explain the allegations. He denied all of them. An inquiry was thereupon instituted by the Deputy Commissioner which was held by Assistant Director respondent No. 3. On receipt of the report, the Deputy Commissioner on the one hand directed remedial measures under section 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and on the other hand called upon the petitioner and another member (Maulvi Muhammad Latif) to "explain as to why their names should not be recommended for removal from the membership of Municipal Committee, Jalalpur Jattan as required under section 29 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979" (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance). A copy of this order of the Deputy Commissioner was endorsed on 24‑4‑1985 to, amongst others, the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government, respondent No. 1. It was in this background that the respondent No. 1 at first called for a report from the Assistant Director, respondent No. 3 who reiterated his earlier findings and finally the respondent No. 1 served a show‑cause notice under section 29 of the Ordinance enclosing a copy of the Inquiry Report and called upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from membership. It is this show‑cause notice which was challenged by the petitioner by the Constitutional petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no doubt respondent No. 1 was the competent authority to initiate and take action under section 29 of the Ordinance but according to the learned counsel, the entire proceedings were mala fide because there were two groups in Gujrat District and it was at the behest of the opposing group that the entire action was being taken and was not justified on merits. It is further contended that the petitioner is being vexed twice for the same cause as earlier action had been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner and appropriate remedial measures had been adopted leaving no scope for further action in respect of the so‑called irregularities noted by the Inquiry Officer and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. Finally, it was contended that be that as it may, the petitioner was not at all associated in the second inquiry which was got conducted by respondent No. 3 who had earlier inquired into the matter, resulting in the impugned show‑cause notice.

We find, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to initiate and finalize the proceedings under section 29 of the Ordinance is not disputed and the objection relates to the legal and factual matters, it is only appropriate that they are raised first before the competent authority and are dealt with by a speaking order. It is premature on the part of the petitioner, as observed by the High Court, to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction for getting such factual and legal matters decided in the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction instead of affording an opportunity to the competent authority to deal with them. It is only after such objections have been examined and dealt with by the competent authority that the jurisdictional aspect of the exercise of such a statutory power could be examined in the High Court. In the absence of it, we consider that the High Court justifiably refused to interfere in the matter. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

M.I Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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