1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed on 28-2-1982 in Writ Petition No. 4790 of 1981.
2. The facts briefly are that respondents 3-12 submitted a requisition to the Deputy Commissioner Controlling Authority, Sargodha for convening a meeting of the Town Committee, Sillanwali, District Sargodha, to consider a motion of no-confidence against the Chairman of the said Town Committee, the petitioner herein. The Deputy Commissioner, on 29-7-1981, ordered that a meeting be convened on 6-8-1981 in the office of the Town Com--mittee, Sillanwali and the Assistant Commissioner was nominated to preside over it. On 6-8-198 t, the meeting was held as directed but at the outset of the meeting the Chairman submitted a written application objecting to the holding of the meeting to consider the no-confidence motion on the ground that it was premature.
3. He submitted that he had been elected as Chairman on 17-1-1980 and the motion of no- confidence could not, therefore, be considered in pursuance of the requisition, as it was hit by the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which prescribes the limits of time during which such motions can be moved. The learned Assistant Commissioner upheld the objection in his order dated 6-8-1981 observing that the motion of no -- confidence was not competent in view of the provisions of subsection (3) of section 31 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
4. Aggrieved by this decision, respondents 3-12 presented a petition to the Deputy Commissioner contending that the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha, m his order dated 6-8-1981 that the meeting convened for considering the motion of no-confidence were premature, illegal and without jurisdiction. In fact, the requsition was neither premature and the meeting could be validly held on the date fixed.
5. The Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both the parties, held that the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in refusing to continue the meeting and as it was the act of the Presiding Officer, which hampered the moving of the motion of no-confidence, the said motion still remained pending and was to be deemed to be the first motion in the relevant regard. Secondly, even if the plea raised by the Chairman (petitioner herein) was correct the requisition for holding the meeting for consideration was now competent (namely, 28-9-1981-the date on which the matter was being decided by him) as a meeting, on the reasoning of the petitioner himself, could be held in between 15-9-1981 and 15-10-1981. The learned Deputy Commissioner accordingly, ordered that the meeting for considering the no-confidence motion be held on 12-10-1981. The meting was, thereafter, held on 12-10-1981. It was attended by 11 Members including the Chairman (petitioner herein). The motion of no-confidence was carried, as ten members out of 11 members present voted in its favour and only the petitioner was against it.
6. The petitioner challenged the above proceedings by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by it, as observed earlier. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions before us (1) that the motion of no-confidence was not competent as it was not within time limits prescribed under subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Ordinance and the Assistant Commissioner was right in holding that the motion was premature, and (2) that the Deputy Commissioner had no power to recall the order of the Assistant Commissioner and to fix a new date for the holding of the meeting.
8. So far as the second contention is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Caveators that by an amendment made in the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980, sub-rule (5) had been added to rule 3 which is as under: - "A meeting convened under sub-rule (1) shall not be postponed except in unavoidable circumstances and with the prior approval of the authority to whom the requisition was made."
9. This rule indicates that the intention underlying it is that any change with regard to the order of the Deputy Commissioner regarding the convening of a meeting ordered by the Deputy Commissioner can only be made with his prior approval. As the prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner was not taken by the Assistant Commissioner his order dated 6-8-1981 was without jurisdiction and could be brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner for issuance of proper directions in that behalf.
10. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the view taken by the High Court that the motion of no-confidence being the first motion in the relevant regard and that it could be moved at any time after the expiry of six months, was the correct view of the law. In any case, in actual fact the meeting of no-confidence was ultimately held within the time-limits during which the petitioner contends that it could be held and, therefore, the petitioner is only fighting on technicalities.
11. We are of the opinion that it is not necessary, in the circumstances of this case, to decide the question whether the motion of no-confidence, which was clearly the first motion in the relevant regard, could be moved at any time after the expiry of six months or could be moved only within the time --limits prescribed under subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Ordinance, or to decide the other question whether, even if these time-limits were to be observed, the motion has in point of fact been accepted during the same. The stark reality is that ten out of eleven members attending the meeting have expressed no-confidence in the petitioner and he is the only member who is in his own favour. In these circumstances, this is not a fit case for interference. The question of law raised by the petitioner can be decided in some other appropriate case. A similar view was taken by this Court while deciding Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 512 of 1981, where, in somewhat similar circumstances, interference by this Court was refused.
12. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.