' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Through this order it is proposed to dispose of I.C.As. 192 and 195 of 2007 arising from the orders of the learned single Judge.
' Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that the appellants in both the above captioned I.C.As. Was elected as the Naib-Nazim of the Union Council No,102 Shah Kamal Lahore. A motion for recall of the appellant Naib-Nazim was moved before the Union Council in terms of section 92(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. Pursuant to the receipt of the said motion, Nazim of the Union Council summoned the session of the council for 24-3-2007 when the motion was deliberated upon. Apparently, majority of the house was in favour of the motion, where after, the Election Commission of Pakistan vide its letter/Notification dated 31-3- 2003 appointed a Returning Officer who fixed 7-4-2007 the date for voting on the said motion in terms of section 92(4) of the Ordinance (ibid). Before the said voting could take place, the Town Municipal Officer Saman Abad Town issued a letter dated 3-4-2007 stating therein that in purported exercise of powers under section 89-A of the Ordinance supra 'the resolution of no confidence' allegedly passed by the Union Council Shah Kamal Lahore against the present appellant had been set aside by the Town Council Saman Abad in its meeting held on 31-3-2007. In the above circumstances, the Returning Officer wrote to the Provincial Assistant Election Commissioner Punjab intimating him of the receipt of the aforesaid letter and soliciting further guidance/instructions. The Election Commission directed the conduct the voting on the 'recall motion' vide its letter dated 11-4-2007, whereupon, the date was fixed for the said purpose as 17-4- 2007. The order of the Returning Officer was challenged by the present appellant in Writ Petition No,3426 of 2007 and contemporaneously another Writ Petition 3381-2007 was filed by Ch. Zahid Hussain and Syed Musharaf Ali Shah, both members of the Union Council and movers of the original motion challenging the letter/ Notification dated 3-4-2007.
3. The learned single Judge of this Court became seized of the matter and vide order dated 20-6- 2007 dismissed the said Writ Petition 3426 of 2007, against which, I.C.A. No,192 of 2007 has been preferred, and vide separate order also dated 20-6-2007 accepted Writ Petition 3381 of 2007 setting aside the letter/Notification dated 3-4-2007 of the T.M.O. Saman Abad Lahore, from which I.C.A. 195 of 2007 has arisen.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Record perused.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned single Judge of this Court has erred in law and misinterpreted the same by presuming that the provision of section 89- A of the said Ordinance would not be applicable to the proceedings conducted by Union Council under section 92 of the Ordinance. It is next contended by the learned counsel that 'Motion' and 'Resolution' are interchangeable terms and the powers conferred under section 89-A of the Ordinance extends to the proceedings at hand. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on the various provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and various dictionaries and Lexicons to explain the term 'Motion'.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has controverted the contentions being raised on behalf of the appellant by contending that a Town Council is not vested with jurisdiction under section 89-A of the Ordinance to set aside the 'Motion for Recall' initiated under section 92 of the Ordinance, as has been done in the instant case, and that the said 'Resolution' passed by Union Council and the impugned Notification issued pursuant thereto were illegal and rightly set aside by the learned single Judge vide the order impugned.
7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellants have urged that in the instant case, the 'Resolution' of the Union Council was not initiated by the Town Municipal Administration, but by individual members, and that even otherwise, the 'Motion' was suspended and not set aside, as is apparent from the record of the T.M.A. Thus, even otherwise, the said `Resolution' and the Notification issued in pursuance thereof, is of no legal effect or the consequence. However, it was reiterated that Town Council had no jurisdiction under the law to pass the said `Resolution'
8. In the instant case the powers purportedly exercised by Town Council are under section 89-A read with section 51 of the Ordinance, which reads as under:--- "89-A. Setting aside the resolution of Union Council.--- (1) On a motion initiated by the Tehsil Municipal Administration, the Tehsil Council may, by a resolution stating the grounds thereof, passed by a simple majority of its total membership, set aside a resolution of the Union Council, if it considers the same to be against the interest of people or public policy." (underlining mine)
9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that at best the Resolution of the Union Council' can be set aside by the Town Council for reasons and in the manner reflected in the said provision.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants have laid great stress on the fact that term 'Motion' as used in section 92 of the Ordinance and the `Resolution' as employed in section 89-A of the Ordinance, are interchangeable. We are afraid that the contentions of the learned counsel are little out of focus. What needs to be identified and examined is whether the word 'Motion' and phrase 'Resolution of the Union Council' are legally identical or not. For it is only a 'Resolution of the Union Council' which can be set aside as contemplated by section 89-A of the Ordinance.
11. Term 'Motion' in its usual connotation refers to a request made by Court of law. However, it has a different meaning with reference to `Parliamentary Procedure'.
12. Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition, 'Motion' in the context of 'Parliamentary Procedure' has been defined as under:-- "Motion-Parliamentary law. A proposal made in a meeting, in a form suitable for, its consideration and action, that the meeting (or the organization for which the meeting is acting) take a certain action or view. A motion may be a main motion or a secondary motion. A motion technically becomes a 'question' when the chair states it for the meeting's consideration. But for most purposes, the parliamentary terms "motion" and "questions" are interchangeable.
13. In Advanced Law Lexicon volume 3 J-P Reprint 2007, 'Motion' has been defined as under:--- "Motion. A motion is a method of making, an application to the Court where in the course of the proceedings it is necessary to invoke its assistance in any matter requiring to be speedily dealt with. Broadly speaking a 'motion' is a proposal brought by a member before a House of the Parliamentary or State Legislature for eliciting decision or expressing the opinion of the House on a matter of public importance. No discussion can take place in a House except on a motion made with the consent of the Speaker or the Chairman of the House, as the case may be."
14. The Law Lexicon of British India complied and edited by P. Ramanatha Aiyar BA B.L, 'Motion' has been defined as under:- "Motion. (In parliamentary law). A motion is a proposition made to the house by a member, which, if adopted, becomes the resolution, vote or order of the house" (underlining mine)
15.. In the case reported as Mahesh Chandra and another v. Tara Chand Modi AIR 1958 All. 374 (v 45 c 90) it was held as under:- "A Motion means a proposal and nothing more. The Statue does not provide for any specific words in which the motion of non confidence has to be made, nor does it prescribe that the motion which is to be put for consideration of the meeting by the Presiding Officer under subsection (7) has to be in the words---the very words---in which the motion or proposal was made in the requisition under subsection (2)."
16. In the Rules of Procedure of the Provincial Assembly of the Punjab 1997 'Motion' has been described as follows:- `Motion' means a proposal made by the Member relating to any matter which may be discussed in the council and includes a resolution and amendment thereto'.
17. Of course the afore-said Rules and Procedure do not apply to the Union Council, and a reference has been made only to identify as to how the term 'Motion' as defined in the Parliamentary practice in Pakistan.
18. It appears that model bylaws were framed for the District Governments in Punjab but not made applicable. In the said bylaws `Motion' has been defined as under:-- "Motion means a proposal made by a member relating to any matter which may be discussed by the Assembly."
19. Of course the said bylaws may not be directly applicable but are indicative of the term 'Motion' with reference to the affairs of the District Government as an aid to interpretation.
20. On careful examination of the aforesaid, it is clear and obvious that the 'Motion' in Parliamentary practice in Pakistan means merely a proposal or a question put to the members of a house for expression of their opinion or decision; and if and when, such decision is taken, or the motion accepted or approved by the house, it becomes resolution of the house.
21. As it has already been noted above that power under section 89-A of the Ordinance envisages setting aside of 'Resolution' of the Union Council: In order to explain the afore-said phrase, it may be appropriate to make reference to section 89(1)(3) of the Ordinance which is to the following effect:-- "All decisions of the Union Council shall be taken by resolutions passed by a simple majority of its total membership."
22. Thus the 'Resolution' of the Union Council would mean the decision of the said Council which has the formal support of the majority of the Members of the Union Council which must have passed.
23. Examined in the above context, it appears that while the `Motion' is mere 'Proposal' which may or may not be in the form of `Resolution' but it does not become the 'Resolution' of the Union Council until and unless 'approved and passed' by majority of the members of the council in the formal act of voting.
24. In terms of section 92 of the Ordinance the 'Motion' is moved under section 92, subsection (1), whereafter, it is 'deliberated' upon by the council as required under section 92 subsection (3), and thereafter, subjected to the formal voting procedure through secret ballot in a meeting presided over by the Returning Officer' nominated by the Election Commission of Pakistan.
25. In the instant case too, the 'Motion' was moved, it was deliberated upon by the Union Council, whereafter, the Town Council set aside the same assuming it to be the 'Resolution' of the Union Council. Real matter in controversy requiring adjudication is whether if the 'Motion' moved under section 92(1) and deliberated upon under section 92(3) assumes the status of a 'Resolution' of the Union Council so as to attract the provision of section 89-A of the Ordinance ibid. After deliberation under section 92(3) the matter is presented for voting through secret ballot as postulated by section 92(4) of the Ordinance. The matter that is presented to the house of the Union Council under section 92(4) is described by said provision of law itself as 'Motion'. Section 92(4) reads as under:-- "If the motion referred to in subsection (1) is approved by two third majority of the votes of its total membership, through a secret ballot to be conducted by the Returning Officer nominated by the .Chief Election Commissioner, the Naib Union Nazim shall cease to hold office forthwith on approval of the motion by the Union council."
26. Thus, the intention of the Legislature is crystal clear that any `Motion' moved under section 92(1) even if deliberated upon by the council under section 92(3) retains its essential legal character of `Motion' to be presented again to the house as a 'Motion' under section 92(4) of the Ordinance. In such circumstances it is clear and obvious that any proceedings on a motion under section 92(1) and thereafter being deliberated upon under section 92(3) does not transform the matter into a 'Resolution' of the Union Council so as to attract the mischief of section 89-A of the Ordinance. Thus in the instant case, as only the 'Motion' moved and deliberated upon, the Town Council did not have the jurisdiction under section 89-A to set aside the same, inasmuch as, it was only a `Motion'
Resolution' of the Union Council.
27. Furthermore, pursuant to this Court's order, proceedings of the Town Council was requisitioned from the T.M.O. Concerned so as to facilitate the adjudication of the lis at hand. From perusal whereof, it transpires that 'Resolution' of the Town Council was moved by the members rather than the T.M.A. Furthermore, 'Resolution' merely suspended the proceedings of the Union Council. No such powers are vested with the Town Council by section 89-A of the Ordinance. Thus even otherwise the provision of section 89-A of the Ordinance had not been complied with or acted upon.
28. For the foregoing facts .And reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that 'Resolution' dated 31- 3-2007 of the Town Council and the Notification issued by T.M.O. Saman Abad Town Lahore are without jurisdiction and of no legal consequence, as has been held by the learned single Judge of this Court. Resultantly, these I.C.As. Being without any merit stand dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.