' Khuda Bakhsh Khan has filed the instant writ petition praying that convening of special meeting of town committee, Khairpur Tamewali called by Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, respondent No,1, vide order, dated 8-5-1991, for 16-5-1991 to consider No-Confidence Motion against him, be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect being violative of section 31 of the Local Government Ordinance (hereinafter called, the Ordinance, 1979).
2. Khuda Bakhsh Khan, petitioner herein, was elected as Chairman of town committee, Khairpur Tamewali, district Bahawalpur, which comprises 16 members. First No-Confidence Motion moved against the petitioner had failed on 12-1-1989. This time 13 out of 16 members of the town committee made an application to the Deputy. Commissioner (respondent No,1) on 8-5-1991 for convening a meeting to consider (second) No-Confidence Motion against the petitioner. On the same day, respondent No,1 made orders calling the meeting for 16-5-1991. Five members were served as per report of the Process Server by 12-5-1991 whereas the petitioner was served on 11-5- 1991. The petitioner on 15-5-1991 filed instant Constitutional petiton on two-fold grounds. Firstly, that a notice of less than 7 days for the special meeting convened for considering No-Confidence Motion was given to the petitioner and the members in violation of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980, (hereinafter called, the Rules of 1980) and secondly, that the meeting called for 16-5-1991 cannot legally consider the No-Confidence Motion in question as the same is incompetent as being not within time in view of subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Ordinance of 1979.
3. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 15-5-1991 and simultaneously an order prohibition to hold the meeting till the disposal of this petition was passed.
4. Respondent No,1 in his written-statement submitted that the petitioner and the members of the town committee were served by affixing notice on the Notice Board of the town committee, by getting it published in newspaper and also through announcement/broadcast from Radio Pakistan Bahawalpur as envisaged in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980; and that the meeting in question was fixed for 16-5-1991 after properly calculating the interval required under subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has abandoned the first objection regarding omission to give 7 days' notice to the members prior to the convening of the special meeting as required by Rule 3 of the Rules of 1980, and rightly so, as the objection does not hold good since the service of the members has been effected through modes prescribed under abovequoted rule well before time.
6. Arguing the second objection, it is submitted that according to section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979, a second or subsequent motion of No-Confidence is "not competent"' if it is not moved within 30 days after an interval of every 6 months calculating from the date of rejection of the earlier No- Confidence Motion. Making precise calculation he canvassed that since the first motion of No- Confidence, against the petitioner .
(i) from 13-7-1989 to 12-8-1989 as the 6 months' interval from 12-1-1989 expired on 12-7-1989 failed on 12-1-1989, therefore, the second and subsequent motions could be moved,--
(ii) then from 13-2-1990 to 12-3-1990 as the 6 months' interval from 12-8-1989 expired on 12-2-1990;
(iii) then from 13-9-1990 to 12-10-1990 as the 6 months' interval from 12-3-1990 expired on 12-9- 1990;
(iv) and lastly it could be moved from 13-4-1991 to 12-5-1991 as the 6 months' interval from 12-10- 1990 expired on 12-4-1991.
' The instant motion, according to learned counsel could be moved/passed in a meeting held before or by 12-5-1991 and not thereafter as the safe period of next 6 months' interval commenced from 13-5-1991. It is, therefore, prayed that since the impugned meeting called for considering the No-Confidence Motion on 16-5-1991 falls out of time, hence the same being not in accord with law be declared as without lawful authority.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has agreed in principle that a No-Confidence Motion can be moved within 30 days after every 6 months' interval from the date of rejection of first No- Confidence Motion but has argued that application for requisitioning special meeting for moving the No-Confidence Motion was made on 8-5-1991 which date falls within prescribed period, therefore, holding of meeting on 15-5-1991 would not matter as the fixing of date of meeting is not within control of the members but is the function of the Deputy Commissioner and that the members should not be made to suffer for the doings of the Deputy Commissioner. Next submitted that since no penalty for holding a meeting beyond the time limit given in section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979, is provided in the said Ordinance, therefore, this provision is directory in nature and not mandatory, hence the convening of the meeting in question with a delay of 3/4 days would not render it illegal. Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner has lost confidence of 13 out of 16 members of the town committee but wants to cling to the office on technical grounds, therefore, he should be refused the relief in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court which is discretionary one.
8. I have carefully considered the contentions with reference to the facts and circumstances of this case and in the light of the relevant law/case law. Learned counsel for both sides admit, and rightly so, that second/subsequent No-Confidence Motion should be moved within 30 days after every interval of 6 months from the date of rejection of first No-Confidence Motion. But, according to learned counsel for the respondents, moving of application to the Deputy Commissioner for convening a special meeting is in fact moving of the No-Confidence Motion and, in this case, the requisition for the meeting was made on 8-5-1991, therefore, No-Confidence Motion is within time whereas according to petitioner's learned counsel, No-Confidence Motion is the one which is formally moved in the special meeting convened for the purpose and not the application made for calling the meeting. Barkat Ali's case (PLD 1982 Lah. 83) decided by a Divison Bench of this Court, clinches the matter, wherein it was held that making of application for convening of meeting for moving a No-Confidence Motion and the moving of a No-Confidence Motion are two different things as they are dealt with separately under Rules 2 and 5 of the Rules, 1980. The observation made in para. 13 of the precedent case in this regard is quoted hereunder with advantage:--- "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the applications for convening of a meeting for moving a no-confidence motion may be disposed of. Not only requisitoin of a meeting and moving of a motion are two difference things as these are separately dealt with under Rules 2 and 5 of the aforementioned Rules, 1980, but the definition of motion relied upon by one of the learned counel for the petitioners also makes it quite clear that in representative institution "the formal mode in which a member submits a proposed measure of resolve for the consideration and action of the meeting" presupposes that the motion is the matter which is considered in the meeting and not request for holding of the meeting."
In this view of the matter, it becomes crystal clear that the motion of No-Confidence in this case was yet to be moved for consideration in special meeting called for 16-5-1991. But that meeting could be legally held upto 12-5-1991 and not thereafter. Since the meeting called for considering the No-Confidence Motion on 16-5-1991 falls beyond 30 days after the interval of 6 months, therefore, the No-Confidence Motion to be moved in that meeting was "not competent" in the meaning of subsection (3) of section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979. If the special meeting is convened on 16-5-1991, it would be having a "not competent" No-Confidence Motion before it. The term "competent", according to Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition), means, duly qualified; having sufficient ability or authority; possessing the requisite natural or legal qualifications; and legally fit, etc., whereas the term "incompetency" means lack of ability, legal qualification or fitness to discharge the required duty. Obviously, therefore, a "not competent" No-Confidence Motion is devoid of legal qualification and cannot be considered by the meeting called for the purpose. I would, therefore, say that on 16-5-1991 there was no legally competent No-Confidence Motion for consideration before special meeting, as such convening of special meeting on 16-5-1991 was simply purposeless. The argument that section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979, is directory in nature as no penalty for non-compliance of this provision is given in the Ordinance, 1979, has no force; firstly, for the reason that it is a cardinal principle of interpretation that what is enacted must be given full effect and the extraneous considerations cannot be employed to make it redundant (see 1980 SCMR 156) and secondly, consequence for non-compliance of this provision is very much provided in subsection (3) of section 31 Of the Ordinance, 1979, which says that if no-confidence is not moved in accordance with the section then it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected. I am, therefore, of the view that section 31 of the Ordinance, 1979, is mandatory. No doubt, on account of sheer technicality the petitioner would remain in the office despite his having lost confidence of the majority of his electorate but this benefit is extended to him by law which cannot be denied to or withdrawn from him.
9. For what has gone above, I would accept this petition and declare the meeting scheduled to be convened on 16-5-1991 for considering a "not competent" motion of No-Confidence to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.