GULZAR AHMED, J.---The petitioner has made following prayer in this petition:--
(a) It be declared that the proceedings conducted by respondent No,6 and the recall motion passed by the meeting conveyed by respondent No,6 are void and without lawful jurisdiction.
(b) That the petitioner continues to be the Nazim Taluka Administration, Miro Khan.
(c) Restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's performance of his duties, and implementing the decision.
(d) Costs.
(e) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found fit. Brief facts of the matter are that the petitioner was elected as Nazim, Taluka Municipal Administration, Miro Khan. It is alleged that on 9-9-2003 an internal recall motion was moved against the petitioner by the respondent No,3 in the Zila Council Larkana on the ground of malpractice. The motion was fixed for deliberation of 11-9-2003 of which notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner also attended the session and explained his position pleading his innocence. It is stated that the motion was rejected. It is alleged that respondents 6, 7 & 8 and other members of Taluka Council, Miro Khan addressed a letter to the respondent No,5, the Naib Nazim, Taluka Municip41 Administration, Miro Khan for calling a meeting of Taluka Council to discuss some important affairs. It is stated that no specific Agenda was mentioned in the requisition letter. The respondent No,5 fixed the meeting of the Taluka Council on 18-9-2003. A day before the meeting, respondent No,5 adjourned the meeting. Intimation of such adjournment of the meeting was sent to the members and it was also pasted on the Notice Board. It is alleged that the respondents Nos.6, 7 and 8 and other persons reached the office of the petitioner broke its gates, locks and took away the files. On intimation to the police such respondents and other persons were removed from the office premises and in this respect of F.I.R. Was also lodged. It is alleged that on 18-9-2003 petitioner received a press release signed by respondents Nos.6, 7, 8 and 15 other Members that next meeting of Taluka Council will be held on 20th September, 2003. It is alleged that on 20-9- 2003, no meeting was held but on 22-9-2003 at 2-00 p.m. The petitioner received notice through TCS courier service signed by respondent No,6 styling himself as Presiding Officer of Taluka Council which contained that the respondent No,7 has proposed no confidence motion against the petitioner which would be deliberated upon and voted at 11-00 a.m. On 22-9-2003 in the office of the Union Council. On 23-9-2003, the petitioner learnt through press that no confidence motion has been passed against him by the Taluka Council, Miro Khan. The petitioner thus filed this petition.
The respondents 2, 3 and 7 have filed counter affidavits/comments. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record. Mr. Illahi Bux Kehar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has firstly contended that motion of internal recall cannot be moved against the petitioner in view of the provision of section 63(8) of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (to be called the Ordinance) as the motion of external recall under section 62 of the Ordinance tabled against the petitioner stood already rejected. He has relied upon the case of Ibrar Hussain v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 2001 SCM R 914. Mr. Inayatullah Morio learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.6, 7 and 8 contended that the provision of section 63(8) of the Ordinance has no application to the case and on this count the internal recall motion passed against the petitioner cannot be challenged. To appreciate the respective submissions of the learned counsel it will be advantageous to reproduce the provision of sections 62 and 63 of the Ordinance which are follows:-- "62. External recall of Taluka Nazim.--(1) If in the opinion of the Zila Nazim, the continuance in office of a Taluka Nazim is against the public policy or interest of the people or he is guilty of misconduct, the Zila Nazim may move a motion in the Zila Council stating the grounds for the recall of Taluka Nazim.
(2) Where the motion referred to in subsection (1) is approved through a resolution passed by a simple majority of the total membership of the Zila Council, the Election Authority shall cause such resolution to be voted upon by the members of the Union Councils-in the Taluka.
(3) Where the motion referred to in subsection (1) is approved by a simple majority of the total membership of the Union Councils in the Taluka, the Taluka Nazim shall cease to hold office from the date of the notification issued by the District. Government under subsection (4).
(4) The result of the approval of the resolution of the Zila Council referred to in subsection (2) and approval of motion referred to in subsection (3) by the members of the Union Councils in the Taluka shall immediately be notified by the District Government in the official Gazette.
(5) Nothing contained in subsections (1) and (2) shall affect the provisions of section 161 in respect of removal of Taluka Nazim by the Chief Election Commissioner.
63. Internal recall of a Taluka Nazim.---(1) If in the opinion of a member of the Taluka Council, there is a reason to believe that the Taluka Nazim is acting against the public policy or the interest of the people or is negligent or is responsible for loss of opportunity to improve governance and the delivery of services, he may second by another member of the Council, give a notice to move a motion in the Taluka Council through Naib Taluka Nazim for recall of Taluka Nazim.
(2) On receipt of notice referred to in subsection (1), the .Naib Taluka Nazim shall summon a session of the Taluka Council not earlier than three days but not later than seven days, if the Taluka Council is not already in session.
(3) Where the Taluka Council is already in session, the motion referred to in subsection (1) shall be taken up for deliberations on the next day from its receipt by the Naib Taluka Nazim.
(4) If the motion referred to in subsection (1) is approved by majority of .The votes of its total membership through a secret ballot, the Election Authority shall cause a vote, to be cast by the members of Union Councils in the District.
(5) Where the motion is approved by a simple majority of the total members of Union Councils of the Taluka, the Taluka Nazim shall cease to hold office from the date of notification to be issued in this behalf by the Election Authority.
(6) Where the motion fails in the Taluka Council, the proposer and seconder of such motion shall lose their seats both as Union Nazims and members of Taluka Council.
(7) The Taluka Nazim shall have the right to appear before the Taluka Council and address it in his defence.
(8) No motion for:recall of Taluka Nazim shall be moved during the first six months of assumption of office of Taluka Nazim nor shall such motion be repeated before the expiry of one year from the rejection of previous motion.
The perusal of the above quoted two sections show that one namely section 62 deals with the external recall of Taluka Nazim while the other namely section 63 deals with internal recall of Taluka Nazim. Procedure for initiating and its ultimate approval on rejection and its consequences are distinctively mentioned in two provisions. It will be noted that for external recall power to move the motion is conferred to Zila Nazim only while for internal recall, the power to move the motion is conferred to a member of Taluka Council seconded by another member of Taluka Council. For external recall, the motion is moved in Zila Council while for internal recall is moved in Taluka Council. Further for external recall there appears to be no need for calling of sessions of Zila Council nor right is conferred on Taluka Nazim to appear and defend himself in the Zila Council. In Zila Council the motion is required to be approved by simple majority of the total membership of Zila Council. For internal recall, if Taluka Council is not already in session, its sessions is required to be summoned not earlier than three days but not later than seven days from the date of receipt of notice to move a motion and the Taluka Nazim is conferred with right to appear and defend himself and the motion is required to be approved by majority of the votes of its total membership through secret ballot. In case of external recall, if motion fails nothing happens to Zila Nazim whereas if internal recall motion fails, the proposer and seconder of such motion lose their seats both as Union Nazim and Member of Taluka Council. The provision regarding Election Authority causing the resolution to be voted upon by the Member of Union Council in Taluka and upon its approval the consequences are the same in respect of external and internal recall motion. There is no apparent prohibition in the case of external recall in terms of section 62 of not moving the motion of external recall of Taluka Nazim before the expiry of one year from the rejection of the previous motion whereas, such provision is specifically made in section 63(8) dealing with the internal recall motion. The submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the provision of section 63(8) should be read in conjunction with the provision of external recall. Learned counsel has cited the case of Ibrar Hussain (supra) which deals with the interpretation of proviso to statute and upon perusal of the cited judgment we find that it has no application to the case in hand. The question in the present case is whether the provision of section 63(8) which appears in the section specifically dealing with the subject of internal recall will also include the subject of external recall as laid down in section 62 of the Ordinance. In Bindra's Interpretation of Statute 7th addition at page 62 the author has laid down the rule as to how section and subsection of statute are to be interpreted.
"8. Sections.---Sections constitute the principal or enacting part of a statute. Every section of a statue is substantive enactment in itself. One section may contain more than one enactment. Each section in each Act must, for its true meaning and effect, depend on its own language, context and setting. In Nuth v. Tamplin Jessel, M.R., observed: "Now anyone who contends that a section of an Act of Parliament is not to be read literally must be able to show one of two things, either that there is some other section which cuts down its meaning, or, else that the section itself is repugnant to the general purview of the Act," and yet, if we find a latter section in such Act repugnant to a former one, the latter must be accepted as repealing the former? A. Section has only one interpretation and one scope; a process resulting in more than one interpretation and scope is clearly erroneous. Every section must be considered as a whole and self-contained, with the inclusion of saving clauses and provisos. 'It is an elementary rule,' says Subbarao, J. 'that construction of a section is to be made of all the parts together and that' it is not permissible to omit any part of it. Subsections in a section must, therefore, be read as part of an integral whole and as being inter-dependent, each portion throwing light, if need be, on the rest, and harmonious construction should be placed on their for the purpose of giving effect to the legislative intent and object! So also, sentence should be construed in its entirely in order to grasp its true meaning.
9. Subsections.--All subsections of section must be read as a `parts of an integral whole' inter- dependent. Repugnancy between them must be avoided and they must be reconciled to the extend possible. (Karanataka Rent Control Act 1961)'.
On the basis of rule of interpretation of section as quoted above, it is clear that every section of statute is a substantive enactment in itself and its true meaning and effect depends on its own language context and setting. In the present case there is no provision similar to section 63(8) in section 62 nor the meaning and effect of the language of section 63(8) leads to that its provision will also have application to external recall motions as provided in section 62. The scope, purpose forum and manner of dealing with motion under sections 62 and 63 are different. We are therefore of the considered view that both sections 62 and 63 are independent provision which operate in their respective field and the rejection of external recall motion under section 62 is not covered by the provision of section 63(8) of the Ordinance. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner was not served with the notice of moving of internal recall and thus no opportunity was provided to him to appear and defend himself and that even notice of internal recall was vague and did not contain any specific allegation against the petitioner and that the respondent No,6 has illegally posed himself as Convener of the meeting. In reply Mr. Inayatullah Morio contended that the respondent No,6 was appointed as a senior member of the council in terms of section 69(5) of the Ordinance and thus was competent to act as convener or the Taluka Council as there was motion of no confidence against Naib Nazim also. He further contended that the petitioner was aware of the holding of the meeting in which the motion of recall was to be tabled and that the notice contained allegation against the petitioner. He has referred to the press release annexure 'G' to the petition and notice published in daily Ibrat dated 20-9-2003. So far the contention of non-service of notice to the petitioner of moving of internal recall motion against him, the petitioner in para. 10 of the memo. Of petition has admitted that on 18-9-2003 he received a press release signed by respondents 6, 7, 8 and 15 other members that the next meeting has been decided to be held on 20-9-2003. The press release shows that the members of the Taluka Council have made allegations against the petitioner of misuse of power, sanctioning contracts to favorites, fixed his commission, ignored issues, including cleanliness of city, education, health and others and that he is incompetent. It seems that on 18-9-2003 motion of internal recall of the petitioner was tabled by respondent No,7. Respondent No,6 as Convenor called the session of the Taluka Council on 22-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. To discuss the motion. It seems that notice of this meeting was sent to the petitioner but says that he received this notice at 2-00 p.m. On 22-9-2003 through T.C.S. And learnt of passing of no confidence resolution against him through press on 23- 9-2003. The respondent No,6 in para. 10 of his counter affidavit has specifically alleged that notice was also published in daily Ibrat on 20-9-2003 and has attached a copy of such publication with counter affidavit. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has not denied this publication of notice nor alleged that he has not seen such notice. The notice published in daily Ibrat dated 20-9-2003 was addressed to the petitioner and it contains that the meeting of the Taluka Council has been summoned on 22-9-2003 at 11-00 a.m. In the Office of Union Council, Miro Khan to discuss internal recall motion against petitioner and the petitioner has been asked to appear in the meeting to defend himself. It seems that petitioner has chosen not to attend the meeting and consequently the motion appears to have been carried and no confidence resolution passed against the petitioner. It may be noted that law does not provide for any specific mode, manner and forum in which the notice of internal recall motion is to be given to the Taluka Nazim. In the present case through receipt of press release, the petitioner was conveyed the allegations against him and further through publication in press the D petitioner was conveyed the notice of meeting on 22-9- 2003. It was for the petitioner to have availed the statutory right under section 63(7) of the Ordinance and appeared in the Taluka Council and defended himself. The petitioner did not avail this opportunity and thus in our view he cannot now raise grievance in respect of the resolution of no confidence passed against him. As regard the question of competence of respondent No,6 to act as convener, it may be noted that the respondent No,6 in para. 7 of his counter affidavit has specifically pleaded that he was elected as a Presiding Officer under section 69(5) of the Ordinance as there were two internal recall notices one against the petitioner and the other against the Naib Taluka Nazim. This plea of the respondent No,6 is not disputed by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. Besides section 69(5) provides that in its first session, the Taluka Council shall elect a panel of Presiding Officers, in order of precedence of not less than three members who shall in the absence of or in the case where a motion for recall of Naib Taluka Nazim has been moved preside over the meeting of the Taluka Council. The petitioner has not disputed that the panel of Presiding Officers was not elected in terms of the above provision nor has disputed that the respondent No,6 was not among the elected panel of Presiding Officers nor has disputed there act of moving of internal recall motion against the Naib Taluka Nazim. Thus on face of the record, there was no illegality in the 'respondent No,6 acting as Presiding Officer of the meeting. No other ground was urged by the petitioner counsel. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. The office objection and the listed applications are also disposed of.