1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 16-3-1981 dismissing Writ Petition No. 1349 of 1981 filed by petitioner by which he sought to challenge the resolution passed . By the Union Council No. 87 Chayanwalla, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang in the meeting held on 1st March, 1981 whereby no-confidence motion moved against petitioner was passed.
2. Petitioner was elected as the Chairman of the said Union Council which consists of nine members.
3. On 18-2-1981 no-confidence motion was brought by six out of nine members upon which the Assistant Commissioner, Shorkot directed, by the order, dated 18-2-1981, that a special meeting of the Union Council be held on 1-3-1981 at 11-00 a.m. At the office of the Project Manager, Shorkot. The notices were issued accordingly to all the members. According to petitioner he and his supporters went to attend the meeting at 11-00 a.m. But no meeting took place and they, therefore, left the premises. The meeting was, however, held at 3-00 p.m. On the same day at which the members present passed the impugned resolution. On this assertion petitioner raised the plea that no valid meeting had taken place, and moreover he was also deprived of the right under section 5(4) of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980 to address the persons and to make his position clear, and the no-confidence motion passed against him was thus void in law.
4. The first plea raised in support of the petition was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court for the following reasons:-- "It is on the record that this Union Council has 9 members and 6 i.e. The requisite 2/3rd voted for the motion. It is also recorded in the minutes that petitioner and another member Zulfiqar' remained present outside but did not participate in the meeting. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies that, but we are afraid we can neither inquire into this aspect nor would be in a position to ignore it without their being any better evidence before us. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the holding of meeting after the stipulated time had caused any prejudice to the petitioner. It rather appears that the petitioner did not have the requisite backing so as to face a vote oaf no- confidence in the House. Consequently, he wilfully refrained from participating."
5. The second plea was also rejected for the reason that the petitioner having himself chosen not to participate in the meeting in spite of being present outside the boundary of the meeting, cannot complain of non-participation.
6. Since the view that has prevailed in the High Court is not open to any just exception, this petition has, no force, and is dismissed