' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.--- The point involved in both the petitions is short and common. We, therefore, through this common order have decided to dispose of both the petitions at Katcha Peshi level.
2. The petitioner in C.P. No,D-208 of 2004 has pleaded that the respondent No,4 was independent member in terms of section 38(2) of the Police Order, 2002 and was appointed as Chairperson, District Public Safety Commission, Hyderabad, pursuant to the election held on 15-11-2002 in terms of section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in both the petitions are that the respondent No,4 in terms of section 39(1) of Police Order, 2002, can only hold office for one year, which period has lapsed for back but he in violation of the provisions of section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002, is continuing his office as Chairperson which the law does not permit and, therefore, his continuation of office be declared nullity.
4. The respondent No,4 has filed counter-affidavit today. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 on the last date of hearing was called upon to show the authority under which the respondent No,4 can continue to hold office beyond one year in violation of section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has sought time to place case-law in support of his point of view.
5. Today we have heard the learned counsel for the respondent No,4. According to him, the Police Order, 2002, was promulgated on 14-8-2002 and the election for the Chairperson of the District Public Safety Commission, Hyderabad was held on 5-11-2002 in which the respondent No,4, who falls in the category of independent members, was elected as Chairperson for District Hyderabad.
He further submitted that on 2-12-2002 the Secretary of District Public Safety Commission, Hyderabad by his letter addressed to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Sindh, intimated him that the District Public Safety Commission has been established in Hyderabad District under the provisions of section 37 of the Police Order, 2002. The Secretary, Home Department by the said letter was further informed that the respondent No,4 was declared elected as Chairperson of the Hyderabad District Public Safety Commission for the year 2002-2003. The learned Counsel for the respondent No,4 has submitted that since then the respondent No,4 was discharging his duties in terms of the Police Order, 2002, and his discharge of duties has annoyed the District Police and, therefore, a petition against him has been filed to dislodge him from his office.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that a resolution was also passed on 24-1-2004 by the District Public Safety Commission by which the respondent No,4 was unanimously recommended to continue his office as Chairperson of the District Public Safety Commission, Hyderabad.
According to him the other Chairpersons who were also elected in the same manner in 2002 in various Districts of Sindh are continuing their office in spite of expiry of their terms and therefore, he may also have the right to continue. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to section 47 subsection (5) of the Police Order, 2002, and submitted that decision of the Commission by simple majority by way of resolution was sufficient.Ground for the respondent No,4 to continue the office.
Section 47(5) reads as under:-- "47. Meetings and conduct of business of the District public Safety Commission.--- (1) The business of the District Public safety Commission shall be conducted by the Commission in a meeting.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5) Decisions of the Commission shall be by simple majority."
7. The learned counsel urged that the Resolution dated 24-1-2004 passed by the District Public Safety Commissioner, Hyderabad, in favour of the respondent No,4 has extended the tenure of the respondent No,4. The learned counsel for the respondent No,4, however, did not cite any case-law in support of his submissions.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Chapter V, which comprises of section 37 to section 48 of the Police Order, 2002, deals with the establishment of the District public Safety Commission and its powers and functions.
9. Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the Police Order, 2002, are reproduced below:- "37. Establishment.--- The Provincial Government shall establish a District public Safety Commission in each District consisting of 8, 10 or 12 members depending upon the area and population of the District.
38. Composition.--- (1) Half of the members of District Public Safety Commission shall be elected by the Zila Council, from amongst its Councilors on the basis of each member casting only one vote in favour of any contesting candidate through secret ballot.
(2) The other half-comprising independent members shall be appointed by the Governor from the list of names recommended by the District Selection Panel.
(3) One third of both the elected and the independent members of the District Public Safety Commission shall be women.
(4) The Naib Zila Nazim shall request the Chairperson of the District Selection Panel to conduct the election of the members of the District public Safety Commission referred to in clause (1).
(5) The appointment of the members shall be notified in the official gazette.
39. Appointment of Chairperson.--- (1) The Chairperson shall be elected by the members from amongst themselves annually altering between independent and elected members.
(2) The Chairperson shall preside over the meetings of the Commission."
Section 37 speaks of the establishment of the District Public Safety Commission. Section 38 provides its composition. According to the language of section 38, the District Public Safety Commission is composed of members, which fall in three categories. The first category of the members are termed as "elected members" who are members of Zila Council and are elected in terms of section 38(4) of the Police A Order, 2002, through the Chairperson of the District. Selection Panel. The other category known as "independent members" comprises the persons who are appointed by the Governor from the list recommended by the District Selection Panel in terms of section 38(2). The third category shall confine to the womenfolk but the members amongst them are also either from elected category or independent category, as has been categorized under section 38(1) and (2).
10. The provisions of sections 37 to 38 have been complied in the present case and the election of the Chairperson was held on 15-11-2002, which fact is not in dispute. The question is whether on expiry of one year, the respondent No,4 can continue his office as Chairperson of District Public Safety Commission, Hyderabad, against the language of section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002.
11. The language of section 39(1) is an unambiguous and it clearly provides that the Chairperson shall be elected by the members amongst themselves annually altering between the "independent and elected members". Admittedly the respondent No,4 was recommended in terms of section 38(2) of the Police Order, 2002 as independent member where after he was elected as Chairperson. Section 39(1) speaks that the term for the office of the Chairperson is one year where after the members would elect the Chairperson from the other category. There is no dispute that the respondent No,4 was from the category of the independent member and on expiry of his one year from the date of election he ceases to hold office and the members are obliged in terms of section 39(1) to elect their Chairperson amongst the category of the elected members.
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No,4 that Resolution dated 24-1-2004 by the members of the District Public Safety Commission under section 47(5) of the Police Order, 2002, in favour of the respondent No,4 would extend his term is completely misconceived. Section 47 pertains to the meetings and conduct of business of the District Public Safety Commission and it cannot have any overriding effect against section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002, which deals with the appointment of Chairperson. We are also not persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel that Chairpersons of the Districts in Sindh were continuing their offices in spite of expiry of their terms and, therefore, the respondent No,4 may also be allowed to continue. With profound respect, we have to interpret the law as it appears on the statute book and merely someone is committing wrong would not give licence to the respondent No,4 to continue his office as Chairperson after expiry of one year of his election. Effect of section 39(1)- of the Police Order; 2002, cannot- be diluted either by any Resolution passed under section 47(5) of the Police Order, 2002 or by any administrative order of any authority.
13. We for the aforesaid reasons allow both the petitions holding that the respondent No,4 on expiry of one year from the date of his election, ceases to hold the office of Chairperson of District Public Safety. Commission, Hyderabad and direct the concerned to elect Chairperson from the category of elected members in terms of section 39(1) of the Police Order, 2002 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order.