' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner was elected Chairman of Town Committee Mirpur Mathelo. The election was held in the year 1987 udder the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. During the continuation of the term of Office of the petitioner, a notification dated 2-10-1990 was issued by the Government of Sindh appointing respondent No,4 as Administrator, Town Committee, Mirpur Mathelo till further orders. This notification was followed by another notification issued by the Government of Sindh, dated 1-11-1990 whereby the Town Committee, Mirpur Mathelo was superseded with immediate effect and Assistant Commissioner, Mirpur Mathelo was assigned the functions of the said Town Committee. This notification was challenged by the petitioner through C.P. No,D-725/90 which was heard by a Divison Bench of this Court and disposed of by judgment, dated 18-7-1991. The petitioner was allowed and the notification dated 1-11-1990 issued by the Government of Sindh was declared to be without lawful authority and it was further held that the petitioner was entitled to perform functions of the Chairman, Town Committee, Mirpur Mathelo.
Thereafter, the petitioner continued to work as Chairman, Town Committee till 30th July, 1991 when on 31-7-1991 the petitioner was informed through the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur that under orders of the Government of Sindh, respondent No,4 had taken over charge of the Chairman, Town Committe, Mirpur Mathelo with effect from 31-7-1991. Although a copy of this letter was not communicated to the petitioner but the petitioner somehow succeeded in obtaining a copy thereof which has been annexed to this petition as Annexure-A.
2. We have heard Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Aftab Ahmed Akhund, the learned Advocate-General and Mr. Parayaram Vasmani who has appeared on behalf of respondent No,4. No document has been placed before us either by the learned Advocate- General or by Mr. Paryaram from which it can be spelt out that the action taken by the respondent No,1 was under any authority of law. Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan has invited our attention to sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance which empower the Government to either hold suo moto or on an application made to it by any person, an inquiry which may be made by an officer or authority which may be appointed in this behalf into the affairs of a Council generally, or into any matter concerning that Council, and to take such remedial measures as may be warranted by the findings of such inquiry. Sections 57 and 58 empower the Government to suspend the authority of a council. Section 58 further empowers the Government to declare a council to be superseded for a period not exceeding six months if after such enquiry, the Government is of the opinion that the council is unable to discharge or has persistently failed to discharge its duties or is unable to administer its affairs or meet its financial obligations or has otherwise exceeded or abused its powers. It is pertinent to point out that neither such allegations have been levelled against the Town Committee of which the petitioner was the Chairman nor such inquiry appears to have been held in the affairs of the Town Committee nor any notification appears to have been issued in pursuance of the said provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. It is, therefore, clear that the action taken by respondents Nos.l to 3 is not supported by any authority of law. Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan has also invited our attention to the case of Shah Muhammad Solangi v. Government of Sindh (NLR 1991 Civil 665) which further supports his contentions. The action taken by the said respondents is also liable to be struck down for non- observance of the principles of natural justice as evidently no show-cause notice was issued by the Sindh Government either to the petitioner or in respect of the action taken against the Town Committee. As we have just pointed out the procedure provided under sections 56, 57 and 58 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance has also not been observed by the said respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no doubt in our mind that the respondents have not acted in accordance with the law in the present case.
3. In the result, we allow this petition holding the action taken by the respondents Nos.1 to 3 as illegal and without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner shall, therefore, be deemed to be still a validly appointed Chairman and he can continue as such till lawfully removed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.