' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Petitioner was elected as Naib Nazim of Union Council No,41, City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, in Local Bodies Elections, held on 31-5-2001.
2. Two Councillors of the Local Council moved a "Recall Motion" against the petitioner, which "Recall Motion", statingly, was carried by the House.
3. Petitioner challenged the proceedings taken on the "Recall Motion" through Writ Petition No,3644 of 2003, which was accepted by order dated 19-6-2003 and the Notification, whereby petitioner was de- A seated, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The members of the Local Council, however, were allowed to move a fresh Vote of No Confidence against the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. The first "Recall Motion" was moved against the petitioner by Mirza Tariq and was seconded by Rana Fida Hussain. After decision of the High Court, Rana Fida Hussain again moved a Motion against the petitioner, which was put to House and was carried successfully in a meeting of the General House, held on 28-6-2003. The District Coordination Officer, thereafter, issued Notification dated 7-7-2003 declaring that petitioner ceased to hold the office, pursuant to .Approval of the "Recall Motion", by majority of the voters.
5. The second "Recall Motion", proceedings taken thereon and the Notification, issued by the District Coordination Officer, have been challenged by the petitioner through present petition. According to the learned counsel, by virture of operation of section 92 (5) of Local Councils Ordinance, 2001, Fida Hussain lost his seat by operation of law and, as such, he could not move the "Recall Motion" against the petitioner. It was submitted that a second "Recall Motion" could not be moved against the petitioner within a period of one year of the first "Recall Motion". Prayer was made that Muhammad Tariq and Fida Hussian, who had moved the first "Recall Motion" against the petitioner, be declared to have been lost their seats and that Notification issued by the District Coordination Officer dated 7-7-2003 be declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
6. A "Recall Motion" against the petitioner was moved on 27-2-2003. The motion was carried. The proceedings, however, were challenged by the petitioner through Writ Petition No,3644 of 2003. The main ground urged by the petitioner that provisions of sub-section (4) of section 89 of the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance, 2001, were violated, inasmuch as, the meeting was presided over by Nazim and not by a Member, elected by the Union Council for the specific purpose. The contention raised by the petitioner in those proceedings were accepted merely on a technical ground that provisions of section 89 (4) of the germane law were not followed stricto senso. It was not the case that a majority of the Councillors had not voted against the petitioner.
7. The proceedings on the first "Recall Motion" were set aside and the members were allowed to move the "Recall Motion", in accordance with law. As the first Recall Motion had not failed, therefore, provisions of section 92(5) of the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance, 2001 were not attracted to the case in hand. The Councillors continued to be the members of the House/Local Council, as the Motion was carried by a majority of the House. The movers of Recall Motion lose seats only in case the "Recall Motion" fails and a majority of the members of the House, do not support the "Recall Motion". This did not happen in the case of the petitioner. The earlier proceedings were set aside only on a technical ground and members were allowed by this Court to move a second "Recall Motion". Therefore, the petitioner has no case to urge, whatsoever.
8. The petition is without merit and is dismissed.