M. BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By the above mentioned three appeals the appellants call in question the common order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 18-10-81 whereby Writ Petitions Nos. 4673/ 1981, 4590/1981 and 4593/1981 were dismissed.
2. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 249/1981 are that the appellant contested the Union Council elections held on 23-9-1979 from the Mohri Barsal Halqa of the Union Council Jarmote Kalan and was duly declared elected. Later on, in December, 1979, he was elected as Chairman of the Union Council and assumed office of the Chairman on 17-1-1980. On 12-9-1981 seven members of the said Union Council moved an application for requisitioning of a meeting for passing a No-Confidence Motion against the appellant. 1n consequence respondent No. 1 the Assistant Commissioner issued the notice regarding the No-Confidence Motion on 13-9-1981. The appellant objected to the above mentioned No-Confidence proceedings on the ground that the notice contained manifest mis- statement namely that eight members had tabled the No-Confidence Motion whereas in fact only seven members including the Vice Chairman had put their signatures to the said Motion; that no clear seven days period was afforded; and that the venue of the meeting was also not proper. On 20-9-1981 the No Confidence Motion was moved against the appellant and he was removed from the Chairmanship. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court but as stated earlier, the same was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned order.
3. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 250/1981 are that Appellant No. 1 was duly elected Chairman and Appellant No. 2 was duly elected Vice Chairman of Union Council Burj Atari, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, and they assumed charge of their respective offices on 17-1-1980.
Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 filed application dated 24-p-1981 for - moving No Confidence Motions against the appellants before the respondent No. 1 Assistant Commissioner. On this application respondent No. I directed that a meeting be held on 2-9-1981 which was, however, adjourned to 8- 9-1981. Later on, the meeting was cancelled by respondent No. 1 after obtaining instructions from the Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Local Government & Rural Development Department on the ground that the holding of the meeting would be in violation of section 31(3) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. On 17-9-1981 respondents Nos. 2 to 11 again filed an application for requisitioning a meeting to move a No Confidence Motion against appellant No 1. On this application respon--dent No. 1 directed that a meeting be, held on 26-9-1981. Thereupon the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 459C/1981 challenging the holding of meeting by respondent No. 1.
At the time of admission the Presiding Officer was directed by the learned High Court on 23-9-1981 not to . Announce the result of the Motion of No Confidence. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court vide-the impugned order.
4. The facts in Civil Appeal No. 251/1981 are that the appellant was elected as Chairman of the Municipal Committee Sangla Hill and assumed the charge of his office on 17-1-80. Later on respondent Nos. 2 to 13 moved a No Confidence Motion against the appellant on 2-9-1981 before the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura respondent No. 1 on which he convened a special meeting of the Municipal Committee to be presided over by the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar. On receipt of the notice the appellant moved an application before the D. C. With the submission that No Confidence Motion was not competent and no proceedings thereon were called for. The D. C., after consulting the District Attorney, Sheikhupura withdrew the notice. Respondents Nos. 2 to 13 again moved a No Confidence Motion on 17-9-1981 which was examined by the Assistant Director, Local Government, who was of the opinion that the No Confidence Motion was competent and accordingly the D. C. Ordered a special meeting to be convened on 27.9-81. The petitioner challenged this order by writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 18-10-1981.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in the impugned judgment section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as substituted by Punjab Ordinance 1'l-df-4981, has not been properly interpreted by the learned Judges of the High Court in holding that the first motion of No Confidence could be moved against the Chairman or Vice --Chairman of Local Council at any time notwithstanding subsections (2) and (3) thereof which stood attracted only in respect of intervals between the first and second motions and any two subsequent motions. In not doing so the learned Judges have not given due effect to the pivotal words occurring in subsection
(2) of section 31 which reads "A motion of no confidence against a Chairman shall not so moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office and..."; that the learned Judges overlooked the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that redundancy is not to be lightly attributed and that effect must be given to every word in an enactment which best reflects the legislative intent and that the deeming provision embodied in subsection (3) of section 31 would have . Its fullest effect for the purposes of every interval provided by subsection (3) including the first motion. They further contended that the law propounded by this Court in the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayat Ullah Farooqi PLD 1969SC407which was a case dealing with exercise of executive powers in which principle of locus poenitentiae was enunciated; that it is indeed beyond serious controversy that passing of the first order by the Collector that a motion of No Confidence was not competent enured for the benefit of the incumbent of the office of Chairman of Municipal Committee and on being conveyed, took legal effect and consequently, valuable rights accrued in his favour to be left in peace under statutory protection for a period of six months undisturbed by machinations of some members.
6: We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and find that the provision of subsections (2) and (3) are clear of any ambiguity. A No-Confidence Motion could be moved after six months period from the date of assumption of office, and in subsection (2) it has been clearly laid A down that the Motion of No-Confidence against the Chairman or. Vice --Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the, date of assumption of his office and the second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with interval of six months between the second Motion or any two subsequent Motions and in subsection (3) it is laid down that Motion of No Confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of 3 days beyond every interval of six months provided under subsection (2) and in such a situation it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected for the purpose of subsection (2). Obviously the words "second or subsequent motions" and "with an interval of six months" relate to the periods after the expiry of six months of assumption of office. The argument of the learned counsel regarding the rejection of the first motion by the Deputy Commissioner also does not appeal to reason as to bar subsequent applica--tion for convening or requisitioning a meeting for considering No-Confidence Motion.
Unless a motion has been moved, rejected or accepted, it cannot be urged with any force that it bars subsequent requisition. Therefore, tit B rejection of the first application would not tantamount to a Motion of No Confidence moved, defeated or carried out. Thus we do not find an force in these three appeals which are accordingly dismissed.