' Respondent No,4 is the Naib Nazim of Union Council No,184, Faisalabad. The session of the Union Council, was in vogue, when on 24-5-2004, a recall motion was moved by two members of the house against the said respondent; this according to the case of the petitioners, was voted upon and was carried. The respondent, accordingly, was removed from the office of the Naib Nazim, and the notification, dated 24-5-2004, was issued. However, from the record it transpires, that the respondent filed a suit, and was able to procure an injunctive order, against such removal and the notification. The suit was ultimately withdrawn and another suit was filed, in which the injunctive order was obtained, by the respondent, from the Court of appeal, as it was refused by the trial Court.
2. Anyhow, during the pendency of the matter before the Civil Court, the respondent also applied to the D.C.0.; the Election Authority, for declaring the no confidence resolution and the notification of his removal as illegal and unlawful. The D.C.O., through the order dated 18-9-2004, has granted the respondent the requisite relief to the respondent, primarily for the reason, that the respondent, was on leave on the relevant day when the motion was carried, was not given an opportunity of defence, as envisaged by section 92(7) of Ordinance XIII of 2001. Hence this writ petition.
3. A number of pleas have beeh raised by the counsel for the petitioners, including the objection about the jurisdiction of the D.C.O., to pass the impugned order. He has also attacked the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, to take cognizance of the matter and to pass injunctive orders.
4.The order has been defended by the counsel for respondent No,4, on the ground that according to the provisions of section 92(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 2001, the motion of recall, can only be moved, against the Naib Nazim, when there are allegations against him, that he is acting against the public policy or the interest of the people etc. It is submitted, that the above pre-requisites are conspicuously missing in the recall motion.
5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find, that a proper recall motion was moved against respondent No,4, which duly fulfils the requirements of section 92(1') as the allegations against him are duly specified therein. Moreover, it is the matter about the opinion of the members of the house, as to whether the Naib Nazim, is acting against the public policy and/or the interest of the people, but it is not the requirement of law, that the exact words of the statute must be expressed in the motion. Therefore, where a recall motion contains sufficient allegations against the Naib Nazim enabling the members to form an opinion against him, within the purview of section 92(1), which provides him chance to know, as to what he has to defend, that shall be the sufficient compliance of the law. It shall be misconception to argue and to hold that the allegation in a recall motion, should be in the nature of a charge-sheet or the charge as framed in the criminal matter, and that the strict rule of proving the charges should also rest upon the shoulders of the persons. Who are movers of the motion. Rather it is on account of the allegation, the discussion and the debate in the house, by all or any of the members, including the person, against whom the motion is moved, that the house shall decide the motion on the basis of the majority rule. Anyhow, in this case, if on account of the absence or leave of the respondent, the D.C.O. Was of the view that the resolution of recall and the notification, cannot be sustained, he, while declaring those to be illegal, etc. Should have kept the recall motion intact and pending and should have directed for the discussion and the voting upon such motion, after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent, as required by the law under S.92(7).
' Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioners, when confronted with the above, states that he would not press his petition for the setting aside of the impugned order and shall feel satisfied, if by considering the recall motion as pending, the session of the house is directed to be summoned and the motion is dealt with in accordance with law i,e, its consideration by the house; opportunity afforded to the respondent to defend the above and voting thereupon. Though, Ch. Azeem Sarwar, the counsel for the respondent has objected to the above, but has not been able to convince me, if the suggested course shall be wrong or illegal. He, however, states that at least one month's time should be granted to his client, for the purposes of canvassing, and the motion should be taken up thereafter. I do not find this to be a reasonable request, which is turned down.
Resultantly, a direction is issued to the Nazim, Union Council No,184 Faisalabad, to convene a meeting of the house on 18-12-2004, at 10-00 a.m., for considering the earlier recalling motion, which shall be deemed pending, and to proceed with the matter strictly, within the purview of The Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. In order to watch the proceedings, I also direct the Deputy District Officer, to be present on the occasion, and to record the minutes of the meeting, which shall be retained by him, to be kept with him, so that in case of any further dispute between the parties, some advantage can be taken from such minutes.
5-A. In the light of above, this petition is disposed of.