ORDER , .
M. 13URHANUDDIN KHAN,~J.-By this petition leave is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 3-3-1982 whereby Writ Petition No. 584 of 1981 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner Subedar Muhammad Akram was declared elected Member of the Union Counsel, Hothla, Tehsil Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. He was elected Chairman of the said Union Council and.
Took over the charge of his office on 17-1-1981. On 6-12-1981 respondents No. 2 to 10 Members of the said Union Council submitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Kahuta a signed requisition asking to convene a special meeting of theUnion Council to consider Motion of No Confidence against the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 asked the office on 9-12-1981 to put up notice for all the members. On 9-12-1981 notices were issued under rule 3(2) of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980 to all the members of the Union Council for attending a special meeting to consider the Motion against the petitioner Chairman and Vice-- Chairman on 17-12-1981 Pt 10 a.m. In the office of the Union Council. The petitioner questioned before the Assistant Commissioner the legality of the meeting on the ground that the Motion was incompetent but it was rejected by the A. C. And the meeting was held and the Motion of No- Confidence was carried against the petitioner:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the A. C. Respondent No. I issued single notice to the Members of the Union Council for holding the special meeting to consider the No-Confidence Motion against the Chairman and Vice Chairman and, therefore, it 'was illegal; and further contended that separate notices ought to have been issued for 'consideration of the No Confidence Motion against the Chairman and Vice Chairman. This argument was repelled by the learned Judges of the High Court for the reason that the purpose of notice was to give information to the members of the Union Council, as well as to the petitioner and there was no violation of any provision. In fact the object of issuance of notice was achieved.
4. The learned council took exception to the finding of the High Court with regard to the interpretation of section 31 of the Punjab- Local Government Ordinance, 1979 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, and argued that the Motion of No-Confidence against the petitioner was in violation of the aforesaid section read with its subsections (2) and'(3) because in the case, in hand, the petitioner assumed office as Chairman on 17-1-1980 and the first No-Confidence Motion could have been moved against the petitioner by 16-8-1980, and any subsequent motion. Only after the expiry of six -months. Subsection (2) of section 31 lays down the provision that No-Confidence Motion against the Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office, and a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six months between the first. And the second motion; or any two subsequent motions. Subsection (3) lays down that a motion of no confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of thirty 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 A purposes of subsection (2). - Thus subsection (2) obviously relates to the second or subsequent motion which shall not be. Moved except with an interval of six months, and it does not relate to the first no confidence motion. Therefore, this argument fails and the petition is accordingly dismissed.