According to the writ petition the petitioner is the elected Naib Nazim while Respondent No, 2 is the elected Nazim of Union Council No, 19, District Attock. A member moved a no-confidence motion against the Respondent No, 2 and a meeting was held with him in the chair on 26.10.2003. The motion was carried. Thereafter on 3.11.2003 the Respondent No, 2 issued a notice that a meeting was held at 11.30 a.m. on the same date and that a no-confidence motion is to be discussed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, since a no-confidence motion had been carried against the Respondent No, 2 himself, he was no longer the Nazim and was not entitled to call a meeting.
2. This writ petition came up on 10.11.2003 when notice was issued to the respondent for 18.11.2003.
C.M. No, 1/2003 was also taken up and it was directed that a notice be sent to the respondents through a special messenger at the cost of the petitioner to be deposited in a couple of days and in the meanwhile the said notice issued by the Respondent No, 2 shall not be acted upon. On 18.11.2003 no one appeared and the case was ordered to be listed on 21.11.2003. On this date it was brought to the notice of the Court that the order dated 10.11.2003 has been violated inasmuch as pursuant to the said notice the meeting was held and a resolution has been passed against the petitioner. Notice was issued to the respondents in the writ petition as well as in Crl. Org. No, 235- W/03 for today and the said resolution was suspended.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had issued a certificate on the same date i,e, 10.11.2003 (Annex: 'B' to the Crl. Org.) certifying that this Court had suspended the notice and that the said certificate was presented in the Union Council on the same date. However, the meeting was held and the no-confidence motion was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents in the writ petition as also Mr. S.M. Ayub Bokhari, Advocate, for Respondent No, 1 in Crl. Org. says that the notice was to be sent through a special messenger and it is a matter of record that the petitioner filed an application for deposit of the expenses on 12.11.2003. The precise contention is that before the receipt of notice the deed had been done.
4. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in this writ petition and the connected Crl. Org. Upon my query all present including the learned counsel for the petitioner state that the resolution expressing no-confidence against the Respondent No, 2 has not so far been approved by the Village and the neighbourhood Councils.
This being so, the Respondent No, 2 holds the office and is entitled to hold the same till such time that the matters are not-finalized in accordance with the law contained in Section 85 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is without any force. Now it appears that after issuance of notice on 3.11.2003 by the Respondent No, 2, the petitioner filed a suit and obtained a stay order from a Civil Court which suit was withdrawn on 10.11.2003. Thereafter, the meeting was called and the resolution against the petitioner was carried. I find that whereas it cannot be strictly said that the said resolution had been passed in disobedience of the orders of this Court, as the record shows that the expenses for the special messenger were deposited by the petitioner on 12.11.2003, at the same time it is apparent on the face of the record that the matters were proceeded with an some haste.
5. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of with the observation that the Respondent No, 2 is entitled to continue as Nazim of the said Union Council till such time that all the proceedings mentioned in Section 85 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 are finalized. At the same time, the proceedings and the resolution already suspended by this Court are set aside with the direction to the Respondent No, 2 to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner intimating him of the said no-confidence resolution and thereafter to proceed further in the matter in strict accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. In case the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he can approach the Court again. No orders as to costs.