' These are two writ petitions Nos,10057-92 and 10589-92 filed by Sh. Muzaffar Ali Jawa, Chairman Town Committee Tandlianwla, District Faisalabad, against no-confidence motion proceedings conducted by respondent No,1 Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and respondent No,2 Assistant Commissioner Samundri, District Faisalabad. Both the petitions can be disposed of by this single order.
2. Copy of first writ petition was ordered to be handed over to the learned Advocate-General to assist this Court with a further direction that no confidence motion proceedings may continue on 24-10-1992 but the final result shall not be announced.
3. Second Writ Petition No,10589-92 came up for hearing on 4-11-1992 and pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents. This petition relates to the no-confidence motion proceeding conducted on 24-10-1992 by respondent No,2, A.C. Samundri, District Faisalabad.
4. Respondent No,2, A.C. Samundri, was asked to file written report alongwith Annexures, if any, vide order dated 4-11-1992 of this Court, as to the no-confidence motion proceedings which report is dated 5-11-1992. Respondent No,1, D.C. Also filed his parawise comments which are dated 1-11-1992.
5. On an undated application of 14 councillors the Deputy Commissioner on 15-10-1992 nominated Mr. Mumtaz Ali, A.C. Samundri as Presiding Officer over the special meeting of Town Committee Tandlianwala to be held on 24-10-1992 at 10 a.m. In the Town Hall Tandlianwala to consider the motion of no-confidence. It was directed that the said officer should conduct the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman or Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980. Copy of this order was sent to A.C. Samundari and Chief Officer Town Committee, Tandlianwala alongwith 21 copies of notices for the meeting. It was directed that the notices should be served upon all the members of Town Committee, Tandlianwala immediately under proper receipts. A copy of the notice was ordered to be published by affixing it on the notice board of the Town Committee. Respondent No,1 issued another order calling upon all the members of Town Committee to attend a special meeting of the Committee on 24-10-1992.
6. An intimation dated 15-10-1992 regarding holding of no-confidence motion proceedings on 24- 10-1992 was given by the Chief Officer Town Committee, Tandlianwala to the petitioner and all the councilloRs, There is a report dated 19-10-1992 that only 14 councillors have received the copies of notices while service could not be effected on five councillors in spite of best efforts. As the five councillors could not be served, there is a report that notices were pasted on their residential houses.
7. A list of the councillors was prepared who attended no-confidence motion on 24-10-1992 and this is duly signed by the A.C. Samundri, Presiding Officer. Petitioner also attended the proceedings and in token of this signed the list prepared by the aforementioned Presiding Officer.
8. That the proceedings started with the recitation of the Holy Qur'an and a report of the proceedings dated 24-10-1992 was prepared and signed by respondent No,2. A.C. Samundri.
According to this, only 16 councillors were present when Mr. Liaqat All one of the councillors moved the no-confidence motion and was seconded by Dr. Muhammad Irshad.
9. It appears from the proceedings that opportunity was given to all the members to express their views and one of the councillors Muhammad Irshad explained the reasons for no-confidence motion. The present petitioner was also afforded opportunity to explain his position but he did not avail the same. Thereafter, the motion was put to vote and 14 persons favoured the no-confidence motion. After this the present petitioner filed a certified copy of the stay order dated 21-10-1992 passed in Writ Petition No,10057-92 to the effect that result may not be prounounced. Respondent No,2 did not pronounce the result and no-confidence motion proceedings came to an end.
10. All the proceedings are Annexures 'A' to 'E' annexed with the report dated 5-11-1992 submitted by the A.C.---respondent No,2.
11. On 4-11-1992 Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate appeared and requested that the stay order dated 21-10-1992 be vacated and result declared. He further stated that all the councillors voted against the petitioners were present in the Court. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate opposed the request on the ground that no action can be taken on such an oral request. Whereupon the request of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate was not considered unless an application is filed.
12. On 7-11-1992 an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Read with section 151 was filed by Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate that applicants Shahid Nawaz etc. Be impleaded as party and heard at the preliminary stage also. The names of the applicants were not disclosed in the application though stated in the power of attorney in favour of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto. The application was not opposed by learned counsel Ch. Muhammad Farooq and the same was allowed subject to all just exceptions.
13. The case was fixed for 4-11-1992 when Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate sent a written request for adjournment on the ground of illness and the case was adjourned to 7-11-1992 with the consent of the remaining parties. On this date, Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate showed his inability to argue the case on account of illness and the same was again adjourned to 14-11-1992 with the consent of other learned counsel.
14. Learned counsel Ch. Hamid-ud-Din has argued the case at length and formulated the following submissions:-
(a) That under rule 2 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980, the Deputy Commissioner was bound to hold an enquiry in order to find out that the application for convening the meeting by the councillors was genuine or not.
According to him, it was statutory duty of the said officer.
(b) That the application for convening the meeting was moved at the instance of respondent No,3, Rai Rub Nawaz Khan Kharal, MPA P.P 47 Tandlianwala and it was all the more necessary that the D.C, respondent No,1 should have satsified about the genuineness or otherwise of the application moved by the councilloRs,
(c) That under the aforementioned rules, the application should have been moved by not less than one-half of the total number of councillors of a Local Council and that two-third majority was needed for carrying out the no-confidence motion.
(d) That all the 14 councillors were not present in the meeting.
(e) That petitioner filed an application dated 18-10-1992 to the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad for obtaining certified copy of the requisition by the members which was not supplied to him.
(f) That there is a connected writ petition No,7432-92 "Mian Muhammad Munir etc. v. Deputy Commissioner etc." pending in this Court where a similar question is involved as to whether Deputy Commissioner should hold enquiry into the genuineness of the requisition moved by the councillors and that the present petition may be heard alongwith connected writ petition.
' On these grounds he prays that the commencement of the proceedings at their initial stage were without jurisdiction and consequently the proceedings dated 24-10-1992 equally stand on no better footing.
15. Ch. Muhammad Farooq learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No,1589-92 reiterated and very strongly the legal proposition canvassed by Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, Advocate that the Deputy Commissioner was bound to give a finding as to the genuineness or otherwise of the requisition filed by the councilloRs,
16. In. Reply Mr. Abid Hasan Minto, Advocate for 14 councillors distinguished the present case from the precedent case and advanced his detailed arguments in the following manner:-- ' That in the connected case an application was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the same was fake and that it was not moved by the requisite number of membeRs, He submits that no such application was moved by the present petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner with such allegations as in connected writ petition. He further submits that there is not the slightest mention by the petitioner in the first writ petition that he moved such an application.
17. I have gone through the contents of Writ Petition No,10057-92 with the assistance of all the learned counsel and am of the opinion that the petitioner did not file any application to the Deputy Commissioner containing allegations as are mentioned in the connected writ petitions. Learned counsel Ch. Hamid-ud-Din relies upon the following ground No,III of his writ petition:- "It is submitted that Deputy Commissioner is not to act as a post office under Rules 2 and 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rule.s, 1980.
It is a clear case of failure of statutory obligations on the part of respondent No,1 (Deputy Commissioner) and sensequent proceedings fixed for 24-10-1992 are without lawful authority."
' Ground VI is couched in the following manner:- "That on identical proposition Writ Petition No, 7432-92 titled "Mian Muhamamd Munir. v. Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad etc. Stands admitted to full hearing and is pending adjudication."
' Whatever may be the position, it is manifestly clear that firstly the petitioner did not file any application challenging the requisition on the ground that the same was fake nor any copy of such an application is filed on the file of present writ petition. As such the issue in the precedent case is different from the present one.
18. Learned counsel has stated at the bar that in the precedent case, no-confidence motion has failed but the writ petition is pending in this learned Court. However, it is stated, that the learned counsel has not been able to cite any rule by which the Deputy Commissioner, respondent No,1, is under statutory obligations to go into the question of genuineness or otherwise of the application nor any rule of this nature has been pointed out by any of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in two writ petitions.
19. The matter, however, does not end here. It is correct that the application moved by the councillors for convening the meeting is undated. But there is an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 15-10-1992 which is as under:-- "Fourteen councillors of Town Committee Tandlianwala have presented this requisition for convening the meeting of the Committee to consider the motion of no-confidence against the Chairman Sh. Muzaffar Ali. All the fourteen councillors are present and have verified their signatures on this application. The case may be processed and put up."
' In view of the aforementioned order, there is no room for the learned counsel to contend that the Deputy Commissioner did not satisfy himself as to the genuineness of the application filed by the councillors, although there was no such legal obligation on the Deputy Commissioner to do that.
20. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto learned counsel for fourteen councillors has forcefully submitted that when the proceedings were conducted on 24-10-1992, the petitioner did not raise any objection regarding the genuineness of the requisition. He further submits that it was open to the petitioner to raise all legal and factual objections at the time when the proceedings were going on. In fact, according to him, the proceedings were conducted by the A.C. Samundri, respondent No,2, and petitioner was afforded opportunity to express his views as to the no-confidence motion but he failed to avail this opportunity.
21. I find that the following is the part of the preoccedings conducted by the A.C. Respondent No,2 on 24-10-1992: {{URDU TEXT}} ' Thereafter, the names of fourteen councillors are mentioned by A.C.Respondent No,2.
22. The original undated application on which the aforesaid order dated 15-10-1992 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner has been shown to all the learned counsel and this has been perused by M/s. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din and Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocates for the petitioner. No serious objection has been raised as to this order except the submission was reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner was bound to hold an enquiry into the matter regarding genuineness or otherwise of the requisition moved by the councilloRs,
23. The other contention of the learned counsel that no-confidence move was at the instance of respondent No,3 and that the same is mala fide is neither here nor there. Firstly there is no evidence on the file of Writ Petition No, 10057-92 that the Deputy Commissioner acted mala fide in ordering the convening of the committee and secondly even if the proceedings are initiated at the instance of respondent No,3 that would not invalidate the no-confidence motion proceedings where the petitioner was present nor he raised such an objection.
24. Learned counsel Mr. Abid Hasan Minto submits that the election and no-confidence is the right of the voters and no person can be imposed as against their will. According to him under rule 3 of the aforementioned rules, the authority to whom requisition under rule 2 is made shall within seven days of the receipt of such requisition convene a special meeting of the local council to consider the motion of no-confidence. It is stated that seven days' time is given only for administrative convenience and not that the Deputy Commissioner should hold an enquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the requisition particularly when no such application was filed by the present petitioner before the authority concerned. There seems to be considerable force in the reply of the learned counsel because such like objections can be taken up most appropriately at the time when no-confidence motion is being considered.
25. In view of the arguments and counter-arguments of the learned counsel, it is abundantly clear that there is no statutory obligation for the Deputy Commissioner to hold an enquiry as is contemplated by the learned counsel. In any case the Deputy Commissioner applied his mind while passing the aforesaid order dated 15-10-1992.
26. The contention that a connected writ petition, on the similar point, is pending and this may be heard alongwith that, also seems to be without any substance. The issues in the precedent case are different from one arising in the present case. Further, as stated by learned counsel Ch. Hamid- ud-Din, no-confidence motion in the connected writ petition has already failed.
27. In Writ Petition No, 10589-92 Ch. Muhammad Farooq; Advocate argued vehemently that proceedings dated 24-10-1992 were not conducted in a free atmosphere and the councillors were under the umbrella of armed persons and they had no free choice to exercise their vote.
28. I have gone through the report of respondent No,2 alongwith proceedings conducted on 24-10- 1992 and plea of the learned counsel is not supported by an iota of evidence in this regard. Copy of an application dated 24-10-1992 in the name of SHO, is submitted in this writ petiton as Annexure `E' showing that the councillors were taken as hostages. No time has been mentioned in this application nor any complaint of this nature has been made to respondent No,2. There is also a copy of FIR No,6 dated 24-10-1992 to the effect that a case is registered with the Police Station Tandlianwala against some persons under the Surrender of Arms Ordinance, Further, there is also an affidavit by some of the citizens of Tandlianwala with the same allegations as contained in the application dated 24-10-1992 that the councillors were taken as hostages.
29. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto learned counsel for 14 councillors denies the aforementioned allegations and further states that all the councillors, voted against the petitioner, are present in the Court.
30. It is not possible for me to hold an enquiry into the disputed questions of facts as are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Suffice it to say that no-confidence motion was conducted by the A.C. Samundri-respondent No,2 which shows that the councillors voted against the petitioner. Not only the A.C.-respondent No,2 filed his report alongwith no-confidence motion proceedings conducted on 24-10-1992 but the Deputy Commissioner also filed his parawise comments in the case. Both learned counsel for the petitioner have not controverted the reports submitted by respondents Nos,1 and 2.
31. Learned counsel Ch. Muhammad Farooq also relied on PLD 1983 Lahore 92 "Mian Muhammad Masud Ahmad v. Assistant Commissioner Kharian and 8 others" to show that the no-confidence motion has to be proceeded strictly in accordance with the rules. In this case there was a violation of sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against the Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980. According to sub-rule (2) seven days' notice shall be given for the meeting convened under sub-rule (1) whereas rule 4 talks about the publication of the notice of the meeting on a notice board.
32. The proceedings conducted on 24-10-1992 against the petitioner and filed in this Court by the A.C.--respondent No,2 clearly show that none of these rules was violated. In this view of the matter the facts of the cited case are not relevant to the present writ petition.
33. Reliance is also placed on PLD 1976 SC 287 "Wali Muhammad and another v. The State" to show that the Court can take judicial notice of certain press reports. In Writ Petition No, 10589-92 learned counsel has relied upon Annexures 'H' and T which are news items dated 25-10-1992 and another dated 30-10-1992 to show that the voters did not exercise their vote freely. Whatever may be the position, I cannot hold an enquiry into this matter as already noticed.
34. It is stated by the learned counsel Ch. Muhammd Farooq that Sh. Muzaffar Ali was responsible for initiating some proceedings against Rai Muhammad Hanif who was at one time Chairman of Town Committee Tandlianwala and who is the cousin of respondent No,3 Rai Rub Nawaz Kharal. In order to wreak vengeance the present proceedings are initiated at the instance of respondent No,3. In support of his contention he relied upon photostat copy of the letter dated 13-7-1992 issued by the Directorate of Anti-Corruption, Lahore. Similarly there is a photostat copy of letter dated 23- 7-1992 issued by the Chairman Town Committee, Tandlianwala to the Municipal Engineer to attend the enquiry proceedings against aforementioned Rai Muhammad Hanif.
35. Learned counsel Mr. Abid Hasan Minto submits that he does not hold any brief on behalf of respondent No,3, Rai Rub Nawaz Kharal, but he urges that there is no evidence on record that Rai Muhammad Hanif is the cousin of this respondent. According to him the first and foremost question is to examine if any violation or contravention of any rule has taken place in the present case. He vehemently contends that 14 councillors not only applied for convening the meeting but also freely exercised their choice to cast the vote against the petitioner. It is stated that none of the relevant rules has been violated in this case and, therefore, it is wholly irrelevant to take into consideration the past proceedings against Rai Muhammad Hanif.
36. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din learned counsel for the petitioner also opposed the presence of Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate to address the Court. As already stated, he filed a C.M. No, 2696-92 and the same was not opposed by Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate. In these circumstances the application was allowed subject to all just exceptions. I am of the opinion that the objection of learned counsel is not sustainable as he was allowed to be heard in motion. As pointed out that Mr. Abid Hassan Minto did not specifically mention the names of the councillors to whom he was representing, although names were stated in his power of attorney. Learned counsel today has submitted a typed list of 14 councillors duly signed by him in continuation of his previous C.M. No, 2696-92 to show that he is representing all the 14 councilloRs,
37. It is contended that the petitioner applied on 18-10-1992 for the supply of certified copy of the requisition but the same was not given to him as a result of which the proceedings in question are rendered nullity in he eye of law. In reply to this paragraph in the writ petition, it is stated by respondent No,1 that the said application was marked to the Assistant Director Local Government with the remarks "please put up" and handed over to the petitioner to contact the said Assistant Director for further necessary action. It is stated in the report that the petitioner never contacted the said officer nor presented the application in question in his office. In these circumstances the petitioner himself was to be blamed and no grievance could be made out later on account of non- supply of the certified copy.
38. In any case the petitioner knew regarding the requisition moved against him when he participated in the proceedings on 24-10-1992 and also before that when notices were issued to different councillors including petitioner. In these circumstances there cannot be any legitimate grievance on this account as is urged.
39. In a democratic set-up where the Government is run by the elected representatives the will of the voters is supreme to choose and elect a particular person. One of the jurists defined the word election in the following terms:- "Election is the act of choosing or selecting one or more frbm a greater number of persons, things, courses or rights. The choice of an alternative. The internal, free, and spontaneous separation of one thing from another, without compulsion, consisting in intention and will. The selection of one person from a specified class to discharge certain duties in a State, corporation, or society. With respect to the choice of persons to fill public office or the decision of a particular public question or public policy the term means in ordinary usage the expression by vote of the will of the people or of a somewhat numerous body of electoRs, 'Election' ordinarily has reference to a choice or selection by electors, while 'appointment' refers to a choice or selection by an individual."Learned counsel for the councillors, therefore, is very right in submitting that no-confidence is the right of a voter.
40. There is a judgment (1982 SCM R 775) "Mian Mushtaq Ahmad. v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and 11 others by the Supreme Court where in a case of no-confidence it was held that the stark reality is that ten out of 11 members attending the meeting have expressed no-confidence in petitioner and he was the only member who was in his own favour and in these circumstances interference was not made.
41. In the present case it is manifest from the proceedings that 14 councillors out of 19 decided no- confidence motion against the petitioner and no case is made out warranting interference by this Court.
42. Net result of above discussion is that 16 councillors including the petitioner participated in the no-confidence motion as is amply demonstrated in the report of the A.C., Samundri dated 5-11- 1992 and there is no statutory violation or contravention of any of the rules under which the proceedings were conducted.
43. For the foregoing reasons no case has been made out for the admission of these two writ petitions Nos,10057-92 and 10589-92 which are hereby dismissed in limine.
' Stay order granted by this Court on 21-10-1992 stands vacated.