This judgment will dispose of the connected writ petitions (Nos.3411, 3993 and 3994 of 1987) involving a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the Punjab Local Council (Vote of No-confidence Against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980.
2. The sum and substance of the attack of the learned counsel in each case on the validity of the proceedings flows from the plea that the Vote of No---confidence passed against the petitioners was violative of the aforesaid Rules inasmuch as the Rules require holding of the meeting to consider a Vote of No---confidence within seven days of the issuance of notice in terms of rule 3(1) of the aforesaid Rules, and not beyond this period.
3. Coming to the facts of individual cases, in Writ Petition No.3411 of 1987 filed by Nasrullah Khan, a requisition was given by nine out of thirteen members of the Town Committee, Sukheke to respondent No.1, Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, -for convening a special meeting of Local Council to consider the Vote of No-confidence against the petitioner who was the Chairman of the said Town Committee, Sukheke. Respondent No.1, on receipt of the said requisition on 20th of July, 1980 ordered convening of a special meeting of the Town Committee, Sukheke for considering the Vote of No-confidence Motion against the Chairman on 30-7-87 at 10.00 a.m. In the office (if the aforesaid Local Council as required under Rule 3 of the Vote of No-Confidence Rules. He also appointed the Assistant Commissioner, Hafizabad to preside over the above-said special meeting under rule 4(b)(i) of the said Rules. The notice was issued on the same day to all the Members of the Town Committee. The Deputy Director Public Relations, Gujranwala was also requested to arrange publication in the local as well as national Press as a news item. However, the petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition and a Division Bench of this Court admitted this petition for regular hearing on 29-7-87 and stayed the meeting WRIT PETITION N0. 3993 OF 1987: This writ petition has been filed by M.S. Siddiqui who was Vice---Chairman, Municipal Committee, Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura. On receipt of a requisition from the requisite number of members of tile Municipal Committee for convening a meeting to consider No-confidence IN/lotion against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, respondent No.1 convened the meeting for 16-9-1987 at 9.30 a.m. In the office of Municipal Committee Farooq Abad for considering the said Motion. This is vide order, dated 1-9-1987. Subsequently, a petition was riled before him on 4-9-1987 by Alhaj Muhammad Ramzan, one of the Councillors, saying that the time given was too much and the meeting may be ordered to be convened on an earlier date. The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, accordingly on 5-9-1987 changed the date of meeting to consider No Confidence Motion against Chairman and Vice-Ch41iiman of the Municipal Committee, from 16-9-1987 to 13-9- 1987 under the chairmanship of the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhupura. It may be mentioned here that the Vote of No---confidence was put to the House on 13th of September, 1987 and it was carried by a majority of 13 to 6 votes.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3994 OF 1987 The facts of this case are similar to those of Writ Petition No.3993 of 1987 relating to Vice-Chairman, Municipal Committee Farooq Abad, District Sheikhupura. The brief facts are that thirteen out of nineteen members of the Municipal Committee gave a requisition on 30-8-1987 to convene a meeting of the Committee to consider the No-confidence Motion against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, on 1-9-1987 issued orders for convening of the meeting of the members to be presided over by the Assistant Commissioner on 16-9-1957 at 9.30 a.m. To consider the No-Confidence Motion against the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the said Municipal Committee. However, on the subsequent application by the members, dated 4-9-1987 praying that time allowed was too much, the Deputy Commissioner through his letter, dated 5-9-1987, Annexure 'D' changed the date of special meeting to 13-9-1987 instead of 16-9-1987. The Vote of No- Confidence was passed against the petitioner on 13-9-1987 by a majority of 13 to 6 votes.
4. The common question of law being raised in these connected matters is based upon rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980, framed tinder the Punjab Local Government Ordinance., 1979.
5. The precise argument being urged before this Court is that under rule 3(1) of the aforementioned No-Confidence Rules, the authority to whom the acquisition under Rule 2 is made shall, within seven days of the receipt of said requisition, convene a special meeting of the Local Council to consider the motion of no-confidence. But in the cases under disposal the meeting was held beyond the stipulated period of seven days.
6. The argument of the learned counsel springs from a misconception about the word `convene' occurring in rule 3(1) and holding of such a meeting. It is not being complained that the order for convening the meeting in terms of rule 3(1) was not taken within the stipulated period. What is being grudged is that the meeting was held beyond the period of seven days. The intention of said rule 3(1) clearly is that the authority shall take pre-emptory action on the requisition of no--- confidence motion and not to defeat its purpose by sitting over it. This sub-rule therefore, could not reasonably be said to imply the same thing its holding of a meeting in terms of rule 3(2). Adopting the reasoning of the learned counsel would mean that we arc creating an irreconcilable situation while construing sub---rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of rule 3. In the former case a meeting had to be convened within seven days and in the succeeding rule a clear seven days notice shall be given for a meeting convened under sub-rule (1). We are not ready to impute absurdity to the framers of the rules. The competent authorities in these cases have discharged their obligation in terms of the rules by initiating action within the stipulated period.
7. Even otherwise the provisions as to tine are directory in nature which would not nullify the initiation of proceedings or their result. We are fortified in 10, view by a reference to the decision of a Division Bench in Abdul Majid v. Province of West Pakistan and others (PLD 196.1 (W.P.) Lah. 531 where similar provision came up for consideration and interpretation. The Division Bench which decided the precedent case wits at pains to point out the difference between the word `convene' and `holding of the meeting'. We respectfully follow the dictum of the Division Bench in the cited precedent which was approved by inn Supreme Court in the case of Allah Bachaya Khan v. The Controlling Authority (1969 SCMR 127).
9. For all these reasons these writ petitions fail and arc hereby dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.