Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar , J.--The petitioners Obaidullah Jan Babat, Nasrullah Khan Zayray and Agha Syed Liaquat Ali, the elected members of the Balochistan Assembly , questioned Notification dated 18 May 2018, whereby they were suspended from the service of the Assembly for the remaining sittings of the budget session.
This Notification was issued when the powers available under Rule 204 read with Rule 14 of the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974 (The Rules, 1974) were exercised by the Chairperson in response to the conduct as adopted by the petitioner in the sitting.
2. It was case of the petitioners that the session was convened by the Governor of Balochistan for the purpose of presentation of Budget 2018-19 on 17th May 2018. That in absence of the Speaker one of the abominated members of the panel presided the session. That the Presiding Officer without any reason, and despite of the fact that there was no issue of quorum adjourn ed the sitting, and after half an hour without having any jurisdiction again convened the session. That the objections raised by the petitioners on the alleged illegality committed by the Presiding Officer were not considered, and the sitting continued. That the Presiding Officer without any legal justification suspended the membership of the petitioners for the remaining sittings of the budget session. The act on part of the Presiding Officer was claimed to be with malafides and with ulterior motives, and in excess of the powers available under the Rules.
3. The petition was pressed on the grounds that a Presiding Officer is only authorized to preside over a particular session, thus once it was adjourned the Presiding Officer become functus officio left with no power to re-summon the house on a different time, or date to that of already fixed; that the power exercised was in excess, thus was of no legal effect, that Rule 25 of the Rules, 1974 was not followed, thus invalida ted the whole process, that theth impugned order was politically motivated, as the Presiding Officer was part of the Treasury Bench and the act done with an intent not to permit the opposition to participate in the budget session. The prayer was for setting aside of the impugned Notification dated 18th May 2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners made his submissions at length. He repeated the stance taken in the petition with no addition. He pressed the instant petition while contending that no power vests with the Presiding Officer to re-call a session once had been adjourned by his own order . Thus when the initial action was without any authority , followed by the order for suspension of the petitioners were of no legal effect. The learned counsel placed reliance on a case reported in PLD 1989 Quetta 25, titled as Muhammad Anwar Durrani v Province of Baluchistan in C.P . No, 290 of 1988.
5. The petitioners were aggrieved of the Notification issued on suspension of the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred to a Presiding Officer by Rule 204 read with rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. The contents of the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel made it evident that the Presiding Officer presided the sitting for the budget session in absence of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker on the strength of the nomination made by the Speaker of the Assembly in exercise of powers available under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1974. The Presiding Officer entrusted with the same powers as of the Speaker when presiding over a sitting. It was within the mandate of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. It reads as under: "The Presiding Officer shall have the same powers as the Speaker when presiding over a sitting, and all references in these rules to the Speaker shall be deemed to include a reference to the Presiding Officer ."
Though Rule 12 of the Rules, 1974 enumerate some of the powers, and functions of the Speaker specifically , but by virtue of Rule 14 all provisions with reference to the Speaker applied to the Presiding Officer when presiding over a sitting.
6. The main grievance of the petitioners was that the Presiding Officer while presiding the session was not empowered to adjourn the sittings or the sessions and once adjourned to re-call it, thus the act on her part was unable to meet the requirement of the Rules, thus of no legal effect. There seems to be some confusion, as the terms "session" and "sitting" were used simultaneously with same meaning and sense. Both these terms used in the Rules with distinct meanings and purposes. Rule 2 sub-Rule (1) clauses (w) & (x) of the Rules, 1974 defined them as under: "2. (1) In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires:
(w) "Session" means the period commencing on the day of the first meeting of the Assembly after having been summoned and ending on the day the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved:
(x) "Sitting" means the meeting of the Assembly or any of its Committees from the commencement of its business to the termination. of the business for the day;"
7. It is to remind that the nomination of the panel of Chairmen as contained in Rule 13 of the Rules, 1974 is meant for presiding the sitting, and this nomination is to be made before commencement of each session by the Speaker .
In context thereof Rule 22 of the Rules, 1974 would he relevant. It placed a power with the Speaker either to adjourn a sitting of the Assembly , or if he so thinks fit called sitting of the Assembly at a time and date different from that to which it was earlier adjourned. In addition thereto Rule 195 of the Rules, 1974 empowered a Speaker to adjourn sitting of the Assembly for want of quorum and for the purpose a proper procedure is provided therein.
While Rule 205 of the Rules, 1974 is in addition thereto. It also empowered a Speaker either to suspend any sitting for a time specified by him or to adjourn the Assembly . This power become availab le when there is grave disorder arising in the Assembly . In view of the referred to Rules a Presiding Officer while presiding a sitting within the mandate of Rule 13, have all the powers to either adjourn, suspend or to call a sitting different to the date it was adjourned earlier as available to the Speaker as entrusted to him by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. In the case in hand the Presiding Officer in abse nce of the Speaker conducted the proceedings as one of the nominated persons from Panel of Chairman and exercised the powers ' available to the Chair within the mandate of the Rules, 1974. No occasion of excess of authority shown or specified on part of the Presiding Officer, neither any paper was attached with the petition in support thereof, nor the law was quoted, violation whereof was claimed.
8. As far the Notification in question was concerned, the petitioners pressed that it was a politically motivated act on part of the Presiding Officer resulted in deprivation of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The contents of the Notification revealed that the order of suspension was made by the Presiding Officer in exercise of the powers available under Rule 204 read with Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. The reason for exercise of the power , as contained in the Notification, was that the members, four in number . disregarded and challenged the authority of the Chair , using abusive language and persistently and willfully obstructed the business of Assembly . All the four were suspended from the service of the Assembly fin; remaining sittings of the budget sessions, except one . three were before this Court. Rule 204 of the Rules, 1974 authorized a Speaker to take action against a member while observing his conduct in the Assembly . While Rule 202 of the Rules, 1974 placed a liability on the Speaker to preserve order of the Assembly this placed all the necess ary powers with the Speaker for the purpose of enforcing his decisions. Rule 204 of the Rules, 1974 elaborate the procedure for the purpose also, reproduction would be beneficial: "204. (1) The Speaker may, if he deems it necessary , name Member who disregards the authority of the Speaker or abuses these rules by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the Assembly .
(2) If a Member is so named by the Spea ker, he shall forthwith put the question that the Member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Assembly for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session: Provided that the Assembly may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.
(3) A Member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of the Assembly ."
The proviso attached to Sub-Rule (2) of the Rule is with a remedy.
9. In view of the described state of facts and the law a power available to the Presiding Officer was exercised in due course, ended in an adverse order against the petitioners. Nothing annexed with the petition to disclose the malafides on part of the Presiding Officer, and her politically motivated inimical attitude towards the petitioners. The session was stated to be once adjourned to some other date, but re-called on same day. Nothing placed in support thereof. It was not clear that the power was exercised either under Rule 22 of the Rules or the circumstances compelled the Presiding Of ficer to exercise power within the ambit of Rule 205 of the Rules, 1974.
10. It was learnt from the newspapers that some Resolution, within the meaning of Proviso attached to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 204 of the Rules, 1974, had already been passed by the Provincial Assembly , and. suspension of the petitioners was terminated. Thus a copy of Notification was called from the respective office for perusal which was received and as taken on record. This Notification was also with the date 18 May 2018, and was with the contents: "BALOCHIST AN PROVINCIAL ASSEMBL Y SECRET ARIA T NOTIFICA TION.
Dated Quetta, the 18 May , 2018.
No, PAB/Legis: I/ (61)/2017 . In continuation of this .Secretariat Notification of even number and date and on a Motion moved by Mir Sarfraz Ahmed Bugti, Hon'ble Minister for Home and Tribal Affairs, Balochistan, the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan in its sitting held on 18th May, 2018 resolved that suspension of the following Hon'ble Members, Balochistan Provincial Assembly (under suspension) shall stand terminated with effect from 20th may, 2018 with the condition that they will tender apology of their behavior before the House:--
1. Mr . Obaidullah Jan Babat, M.P .A.
2. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa Khan Tareen, M.P .A.
3. Mr . Nasrullah Khan Zayray , M.P .A.
4. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali, M.P .A.
Sd/-Secretary 18.05.2018.
Copy forwarded for information to:
1. All the Hon'ble Members,
2. The Principal Secretary to Governor Balochistan, Quetta.
3. The Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Balochistan.
4. The Secretary , Government of Balochistan, Home and Tribal Affairs Department.
5. The Inspector General of Police, Balochistan, Quetta.
6. The Secretary to Speaker , Balochistan Provincial Assembly .
7. The Director General, Public Relations Balochistan, Quetta."
11. In view a Notification had been issued subsequently in continuation of the pervious one, thus holds the field.
The petitioners were allowed to attend the sittings from 20 May 2018, but it is with a condition to tender apology for their behaviour before the House. This Notification is not in question in the instant petition, thus no findings recorded to this extent. The judgment relied by the learned counsel though deals with the matters pertaining to Assembly , but the facts of the case were not identical to that of the case in hand, thus not relevant, nor helpful to resolve the issue in hand.
12. Above all Article 69 of the Constituti on act as a safeguard with reference to the acts done by an Officer or Member of the Parliament within the provided scope, thus placed a bar to question the validity of exercise of such powers before a Court of law. Though this Article pertained to Parliament, but also made applicable to the Provincial Assemblies by virtue of Article 127 of the Constitution. Reproduction of Article 69 would be for better understanding of the issue: "69. (1) The validity of any proceedings in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for maintaining order in Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any Court in respect of the exercise him of those powers.
(3) In this Article, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has the same meaning as in Article 66. "
In view of the explicit provision of the Constitution coupled with Rule 200 of the Rules, 1974 the case in hand if assessed the questioned act surely done by a Member of the Provincial Assembly while acting as Presiding Officer, thus the bar contained in sub-article (2) of the Article would have its application. The contents of the petition if believed as stated, the only allegation which could have been made out was of irregularity of the procedure and nothing else, thus the validity of the said proceeding in view of sub-article (1) of the Article could not be questioned in Court of law. In addition it further restrained to challenge authority of the Presid ing Officer, to whom the power was vested for regulating procedure, to conduct the business and to maintain order in Assembly . An indemnity available to the Presiding Officer by the mandate of the Constitution. This Article further makes the instant petition not maintainable.
13. In view of the above discussion the petitioners have failed to make out a case which shows any violation of the Constitution or of the Rules, 1974, or mala fides on part of the presiding Officer resulted in passing of an order prejudicial to the petitioners and also resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution,thus mandated exercise of the powers available under Article 199 of the Constitution by this Court. The legal course rather the remedy provided by the Rules, 1974 have already been exercised resulted in issuance of the subsequent Notification, whereby the order of suspension had already been terminated.
14. Before parting with the judgment it is to remind to the petitioners, the learned Members of the Assembly , that the Presiding Officer acted within the authority placed by the Rules, 1974, thus undermining the authority by the acts on part of the petitioners neither could be appreciated, nor could be allowed to continue. The Members of the Assembly have to follow the Rules and to observe the conduct as required by Rule 220 of the Rules, 1974, which was missing in the. case in hand.
The petition is dismissed in limine for the stated reasons.