' This order will dispose of writ petitions bearing Nos.1264 and 1412 of 1991 by a single order as both these petitions involve the examination of same questions of law and facts.
2. The facts in brief are; that the petitioner was elected as Chairperson of Town Committee, Jahania in March, 1989. After the expiry of about 27 months, written requisition signed by the requisite number of councillors of the Town Committee was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal for the purpose of convening a special meeting of Town Committee to consider the no- confidence motion against the petitioner. On this the Deputy Commissioner convened the special meeting of Town Committee on 25-5-1991. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner brought constitution petition bearing No,1264 of 1991 against the said meeting. This petition came up for hearing on 25- 5-1991. The respondent No,1 was directed to submit para-wise comments in respect of allegations contained therein and was further directed not to announce the result. The meeting was held and no-confidence motion was carried out by 2/3rd majority of the councillors. Against this, the petitioner lodged Writ Petition No,1412 of 1991.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforenoted Constitution petitions raised the following points:-- ' Firstly, that the notice was issued in patent violation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Punjab Local Council (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980. According to the learned counsel these rules were mandatory in nature and its non-compliance had vitiative effect on the proceedings from inception to fmish. Reliance was placed on Mian Muhammad Masood Ahmad v. Assistant Commissioner, Kharian and 8 others PLD 1983 Lah.
92.
' Secondly, that the petitioner was wife of late Abdur Rahman Wahla who was the founder member of Pakistan Peoples Party. He was returned Member of National Assembly in the General Elections, 1987 and on his demise she was elected as Councillor and then as Chairperson of the Town Committee, Jahania. From the beginning, the Government headed by the Chief Minister, started to dislodge her by hook and by crook in order to achieve this object. It was complained that 6 councillors who were her supporters were kidnapped, lodged at Murree and on crucial date were stranded in Faisalabad. One of them namely Khan Muhammad Randhawa reached Jahania and has given affidavit to this effect. This speaks volume about the malicious nature of these proceedings.
' Thirdly, it was represented that the mandatory requirements of Rule 5 were contravened by the Presiding Officer. The petitioner was not given opportunity to explain her position with respect to the allegations incorporated in the no-confidence motion. Neither the petitioner was supplied the copy of no-confidence motion nor she was given the opportunity by the Presiding Officer to controvert the allegations and appeal to her electorate to see the sanity. It was argued that 7 days' clear notice was mandatory requirement as it enabled the Chairman/ViceChairman to contact the councillors and persuade them not to vote for no-confidence motion.
4. The learned Addl. A.-G. Appearing on behalf of respondents opposed the grant of relief in this petition on the premises that no-confidence motion was carried out by 2/3rd members; that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the councillors. It was further stressed that the service of councillors including the petitioner was got effected through citation in Press, by means of announcement on radio and by beat of drum in compliance with sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Punjab Local Council (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman), Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1980).
(4) The notice of the meeting shall he published by affixing it on a Notice.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and gone through the record of no-confidence motion from commencement to finish in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts, it is established that the notices were issued on 18-5-1991 and that the notices were published in daily Nawa-i-Waqt and 'Imroz' on 19-5-1991; that the petitioner received notice on 21-5-1991; that on 25-5-1991 the motion was carried out by 11 councillors out of 16 councillors.
6. Seen from this background, the only question calling for determination is whether non- compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 1980 has invalidating effect on the proceedings of no-confidence motion.
7. In order to appreciate the contentions, it is convenient to examine the relevant Rules which read as under:-- Rule 2. Requisition for convening a meeting for moving a vote of no-confidence.---. (1) Not less than one half of the total number of members of a local council may, by a written requisition signed by them, require the convening of a special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the local council.
(2) The requisition under sub-rule (1) shall be addressed to--
(a) .................................................................
(b) the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the case of a Municipal Committee or a Town Committe; and (c)
(3)
(4) .................................................. .Rule 3. Convening of meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence.-- (1) The authority to whom the requisition under Rule 2 is made shall, within 7 days of the receipt of such requisition, convene a special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no-confidence.
(2) A seven days notice shall be given for a meeting convened under sub-rule (1).
(3) .................................................................
' Board of the office of the local council and may also be made known to the members by any of the following means:--
(a) an advertisement or a Press Note in a newspaper commonly read in the area of the local council; or
(b) a radio announcement; or
(c) beat of drum; or
(d) such other mode as may be considered appropriate by the Presiding Officer.
(e) ..
(f) ..
Rule 5. Motion of no-confidence.---. (1) At the meeting convened under Rule 3, any member who has signed the requisition under sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 may move the no-confidence motion against the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman, as the case may be.
(2) If the motion has been seconded, it shall be open to the consideration of the local council and any member may speak for or against the motion.
(3) No member shall speak on the motion more than once.
(4) The Chairman or the Vice-Chairman against whom a motion of no-confidence has been moved shall have the right to offer a personal explanation either verbally or in writing, and where a written explanation is offered, it shall be circulated amongst the members and shall form part of the record of the proceedings of the meeting.
(5) If at the meeting convened ruder Rule 3---(i) no member turns up; or no member moves the no-confidence motion, the no-confidence motion shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected.
From the plain reference to Rules 2, 3 and 5 shows that the no-confidence motion has to pass through various phases. Rule 2 deals with requisition for convening a meeting for moving a vote of no-confidence. It postulates that such motion shall be by a written requisition signed by not less than 1/2 of the total number of local councillors and shall require the convening of a special meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman/Vice-Chairman. This requisition shall be addressed to the Deputy Commissioner concerned in the case of Municipal Committee or a Town Committee. Under Rule 3, the Deputy Commissioner is mandated to convene a special meeting to consider such motion within 7 days of the receipt of such requisition. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 a 7 days' notice shall be given for a meeting convened under sub-rule (1). It further provides the means of effecting service on Chairman/Vice-Chairman and members i.e, through an advertisement or a Press note in a newspaper usually read in the area of the local council or by radio announcement or by beat of drum or by such other mode as may be considered appropriate by the Presiding Officer. If this exercise is done then comes the Rules 5 and 6 which relate to the proceedings of motion of no-confidence and procedure for voting. The contention of the petitioner is that neither she was given 7 days' notice nor she was afforded opportunity to explain her position qua the allegations contained in no-confidence motion.This question came up for consideration in Sadiq Ali v. Collector, Gujranwala and another PLD 1964 Lah.
255. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of SA. Mahmood and Muhammad Akram, JJ, as under:-- "An objection was also taken in the writ petition that seven clear days' notice was not given for the meeting which was convened under Rule 3(2). It is stated in the report that notice of the meeting was served on the members on the 5th December, and the meeting was held on the 12th December, It is true that seven clear days' notice was not given thereby, but this was a mere irregularity and did not affect the result or prejudice the petitioner. No prejudice has been alleged or complained of. The rule cannot be deemed to be a mandatory one, so as to in validate the proceedings of the election. Nineteen members out of twenty-one attended the meeting and, therefore, no such illegality as invalidates the result of the meeting can be deduced."
' The same view was followed in Abdul Majid v. Province of West Pakistan and others PLD 1964 Lah.
531. The relevant passage of the judgment of his Lordship Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad (as he then was) is as under:-- "As regards the construction of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 it will be seen again that it is expressed in affirmative language 'seven clear days' notice shall be given...'. The word 'clear' emphasises that both the terminal days, i.e, the day on which the notice is given and the day on which it is received, have to be excluded. I considep that the sub-rule is couched in words of command but the command is directory in nature and is not absolute and obligatory in the sense that its non- compliance or disobedience nullifies all the incidents connected therewith and the consequences flowing therefrom."
' The view taken in the aforenoted cases, was approved by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Allah Bachaya Khan v. The Controlling Authority (Collector), D.G. Khan and another 1969 SCMR 127. In this case this rule relating to 7 days' notice was held to be directory. The same principle was followed in Kamil Noor Khan v. Controlling Authority, Union Committee No,60, Karachi and 3 others PLD 1970 Kar.
730.
8. The ratio emerging from the aforenoted cases is that the rule regarding 7 days' notice is directory in nature and cannot have invalidating effect on the proceedings unless and until some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. In view of this, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit and is accordingly repelled.
9. There is yet another aspect of the case, that the petitioner has been outvoted by 2/3rd majority.
She appears to have forfeited the confidence of her constituency. It is not in the fitness of things to foist her on electorate under the garb of mere fetish technicalities. Reference may be made to Ch. Barkat Ali and another v. A.C. Ferozewala and 10 others PLD 1982 Lah.
83. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceed on distinguishable facts and have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
10. For what just has been stated above, I find no merit in these Constitution petitions and also found that it is not a fit case for the exercise of discretionary relief under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioner. As a result, these Constitution petitions fail and ale dismissed.