MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- Rawalpindi is a Class I Cantonment within the meaning of Section 13(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. A Cantonment Board was constituted for the said Cantonment in terms of Section 13-A(1) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act). The elections of the 12 members was held on 20.5.1998. The 12 persons mentioned in para. 1 of the writ petition including Haji Muhammad Ijaz petitioner were elected and they were declared to be so elected vide notification dated 25.6.1998. Purporting to act under Section 14 of the said Act, the Federal Government issued Notification No. SRO 1145(0/99, dated 5.11.1999 constituting a three members Board under Section 14(3) of the said Act vide notification dated 15.12.1999. This Varied Board was constituted for one year. Vide notification dated 4.11.2000 this period was extended for one year. This was followed by notification dated 3.12.2001 again extending the period for one year.
This notification expired on-5.11.2002.
2. 0n 3.1.2003 the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. According to the writ petition upon the. Expiry of the said notification the Board constituted under Section 1 3-A of the said Act stood automatically restored and the petitioner and the other elected members filed an application on 26.12.2002 before the respondent No. 2 for requisition of special Board meeting of the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi. The respondent No. 2 refused to requisition the meeting vide order dated 30.12.2002. According to the writ petition the said notifications were issued without any rhyme or reason and in any case upon the expiry of the last notification, in terms of Section 14(5) of the said Act, the Board constituted under Section 13-A stood restored. Then there is a reference to an earlier judgment of this Court reported as 1996 CLC 293 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 1997 SCM R 1 and similarly issued notifications were quashed, It was prayed that the said order dated 30.12.2002 be declared to be without lawful authority and the respondents be directed to call the meeting in terms of Section 37(2) of the said Act. - 3. The writ petition came-up before the Court on 7.1.2003 even Mr. Waqar-ul-Haq Sheikh, Advocate, put in appearance for respondents .Nos. 2 and 3. It was directed that the parawise comments and report be filed within a fortnight. The case was then taken-up on 21.1.2003 when the said learned counsel for the respondents sought further time to file the report and parawise comments. On 6.3.2003 a report and parawise comments were filed, In this report the position taken was that on 29.1.2003 yet another notification has been issued extending the period of the Varied Board for another six months. Regarding the petitioner and the other elected members it was stated that they were declared elected vide notification date 25.6.1998 and the four years term has since expired. This report was considered on 19.3.2003 in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties, It was observed that the notification doe snot state any reason as to why the' said action has been taken within the meaning of Section 14 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instructions and to file a statement containing reasons as to why the said extension has been made and as to why in the first instance the Varied Board was constituted. The needful was not done and the writ petition was admitted to hearing on 25.4,2003.
Notice was accepted by learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 while notice was ordered to be issued to respondent No. 1 as also the learned Deputy Attorney- General. On ljjl.5.2003 the case was taken-up in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the learned D.A.G. The latter two requested for adjournment and the case was accordingly adjourned. To 23.5.2003. Thereafter, the learned D.A.G, did not put in appearance. The case has been heard today in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the case of Ghulam Habib Rana and another v. Pakistan and others (1996 CLC 293) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan whereby the appeal filed by the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, against the said judgment was decided (1997 SCM R 1) to urge that all the said notifications are illegal and void on the ground that nothing has been disclosed or brought on record as to why the Board was Varied.
Regarding the stance of the respondents that the terms of the petitioner and the other elected members expired, learned counsel relies upon Section 15-E of the said Act that till the election or the nomination of the successor of the petitioner and the other elected members they are to continue to function as members and as such till the said eventuality they are entitled to continue and consequently the Board as constituted as a result of the notification of election result dated 20.5.1998 stands restored and has to functions. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 states that because of rapid increase in population the Authority was facing administrative \ problems which was getting severe day by day and it was decided to bifurcate Rawalpindi Cantonment into Rawalpindi Cantonment and Chaklala Cantonment some times back. According to him, this was the reason for constituting the Varied Board. This contention has been raised with reference to a statement filed in Court in response to the said query. I may note here that this statement has not been added by the office at the time the order dated 25.4.2003 was passed.
Learned counsel further contends that the notifications in questions have been issued with lawful authority and in accordance with the said provisions of the said Act.
5. Now under Section 14(1) the Federal Government upon being satisfied:-
(a) that, by reason of military operation it is necessary, or (b) that for the administration of the cantonment, it is desirable, to vary the Constitution of the Board in any cantonment under this section, the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make a declaration to that effect.
This further provided under sub-section (2) of the said Section 14 upon making the said declaration the Board in the cantonment shall consist of the following members, namely:-
(a) the Officer Commanding the station;
(b) one military officer nominated by name by the Officer Commanding the station by order in writing;
(c) one member, not being a person in the service of the Government, nominated by the Officer Commanding the station.
Under sub-section (4) the term of office of the Board so constituted shall not ordinarily extend beyond one year. This is subject to the proviso that the Central Government may from time to time, by a like declaration extend the term of office of such a Board by any period not exceeding one year at a time. The further proviso to sub-section (4)/lays down that the Central Government shall forthwith c&reet that the term of office of such a Board shall cease if, in the opinion of the Central Government, the reasons stated in the declaration whereby such Board was constituted, or its term of office was extended, have ceased to exist. Subsection (5) of the said Section 14 is in the following terms:-
(5) When the term of office of a Board constituted under this section has expired or ceased, the Board shall be replaced by the former Board which, but for the declaration under sub-section (1), would have continued to hold office, or, if the term of office of such former Board has expired,' by a Board constituted under Section 13-A."
6. Now the notification in terms of Section 14(1) is Annex:, 'C' which is reproduced hereunder:- "S.R.O. 1145(0/99.- Whereas the Federal Government is satisfied that, for the Administration of the Rawalpindi Cantonment, it is desirable to vary the Constitution of the Cantonment Board in that Cantonment under Section 14 of Cantonment Act, 1924 (II on 1924).
NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (T) of the aforesaid section, the Federal Government is pleased to declare that it is desirable to vary the Constitution of the aforesaid Board under the said section for one year with immediate effect. No. 45/2/B&G/ML&C/91/3471-I/D- 12/ML&C/99." The latter notifications were similarly worded and first of such notification is Annex: 'D' in the following terms:- "S.R.O. 802(1 )/2000.- In exercise of the powers conferred by the first proviso to subsection (4) of Section 14 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (II of 1924), the Federal Government is pleased to extend the term of office of the Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi, varied vide its Notification No. S.R.O.
1145(l)/99, dated the 5th November, 1999, for a further period of one year commencing fro the 5th November, 2000." Admittedly, the last of such notification was issued during the pendency of this writ petition after notice to the respondents.
7. I have examined the said case of Ghulam Habib Rana and another as also the judgment in appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan being cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, It is but obvious that the respondents have opted to act under clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of the said Section 14. Now the said provision of law envisages satisfaction of the Central Government as to reasons as to why it is desirable to vary the Board for the administration of the Cantonment. There is nothing in the said notifications and nothing has been otherwise brought on record as to how the Central Government was satisfied that the said extra ordinary measure is required to be taken, In the case of Syed Saeed Hassan v. Pyar Ali and 7 others (PLD 1976 SC 6), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows with reference to the term "satisfaction"
"Satisfaction" is by no means a term of art and appears to have been used in its ordinary dictionary sense. "Satisfaction" is the existence of a state of mental persuasion much higher than a mere opinion and when used in the context of judicial proceedings has to be arrived at in compliance with the prescribed statutory provision and other legal requirements. Far from being a subjectively or capriciously arrived at conclusion, it presumes observance of certain well-settled judicial principles and is a firm state of mind admitting of no doubt or in decision or vocification. To be "satisfied" with a state of things is to be honestly convinced in one's on mind. According to Black's Law Dictionary apart from the "legal satisfaction" which is a term of art and connects discharge of a claim, debt or legal demand, to satisfy in the ordinary sense is to convince. Satisfactory evidence has been explained as sufficient evidence meaning an amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. In .Corpus Juris Secondum "satisfy" has been held to be synonymous with, "convince beyond a reasonable doubt" and ".Satisfaction" has been explained as a state of mind, which connotes a sense of certainty, and conviction or release from suspense, doubt or uncertainty. According to the Oxford English Dictionary "to satisfy" means to furnish with sufficient proof or information or to assure or set free from doubt or uncertainty to convince." In this case there is hardly .a plea muchless some material on record to enable this Court to adjudge that the Central Government was satisfied 0n the touchstone of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. Now in almost similar circumstances this Court observed as follows while dealing with tha term "for administration of cantonment" at page 305 of the said judgment reported as 1996 CLC 293:- "There has to be a desperate situation regarding administration such as a complete or considerable breakdown of administrative machinery, unconscionable neglect of duties of the members of the Board, or conduct of the members in a manner which would paralyze the administrative machine. Minor deficiencies can be got remedied by the Federal Government by administrative directed as well and drastic step warranted under Section 14 is not called for." The Hon'ble Supreme Court with reference to cases of Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 SC 166), Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and another (PLD 1992 SC 646) and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473) observed as follows in 'ara. 11 of the judgment at page 13 of the report:- "11. The above three judgments of this Court support the view which found favour with the Courts below to have examined the question, whether the satisfaction of the Central Government referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act was founded on the grounds clauses (a) and (b) of aforesaid sub-section (1) of Section 14. Admittedly clause (a) is not attracted to the case in hand as it has not been contended by the petitioners that the impugned notifications were issued because they were necessary by reason of military operations. The question, therefore, arises, as to whether above clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Act could have been pressed into service which . Provide that "that for the administration of the cantonment it is desirable." The aforesaid clause can be invoked if. It can be shown that the act of variation of the Constitution of the Board in terms thereof will eliminate the obstruction in the smooth functioning of the cantonment, In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to indicate toat the conduct of the elected - members was such which imperilled/hampered the smooth functioning of the Board. The only facts which have been brought on record are that a vote of no- confidence was successfully moved against the Vice-President, Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, and that the latter had filed an application before the President of the Board against respondent No. 7. Ch. Tanvir Khan, for getting him disqualified. This has also been stated that the elected members were grouped into two factions, namely, Muslim League. (N) and Pakistan People's Party. Simpliciter the above facts, without having nexus with the smooth working of the administration of the Board, in our view, are not sufficient to dislodge the elected members of the Board- At this juncture, it will not be out of context to point out that Article 7 of the Constitution gives the definition of the term 'State' by providing that "In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the state' means the Federal Government, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), a Provincial Government, a. Provincial Assembly, and such local or other authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to impose any tax or cess." The above definition apparently would include local and other authorities in Pakistan which are empowered by law to impose any tax or cess. Since admittedly the Board has power to levy tax, it is covered by the aforesaid definition of the term "state".
10, Now so far as the said reason stated by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, suffice it to say that he admits that till date the other Cantonment Board i.e. Chaklala Cantonment Board has not been constituted and this the Varied Board constituted in place of the Board constituted under Section 13-A of the said Act which is functioning. Even if the said reason is taken at its face- value, it hardly constitutes a ground for variation in the Board as the process of de-limitation and thereafter the elections are duly laid down in the said Act itself. I, therefore, do not at all agree with the learned counsel that the said reason was sufficient to vary the Board.
11. I, therefore, find this case to be at all fours with the said cases already decided by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal.
12. So far as the matter of replacement of the said Varied Board is concerned, Section 15-E of the said Act clearly provides that notwithstanding the expiry of the term of members, they shall continue to function as members until the election or as the case may be nomination of their successor to be notified under subsection (5) of Section 13-A of the said Act.
13. The writ petition accordingly is allowed. The notification Varying the Board and consequently extending the term thereof are declared to be without lawful authority and accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently all the decisions taken or orders made by the members of the Varied Board, except to the extent of payment of salary to the staff of the Cantonment Board and payment of utility bills shall stand void unless ratified by the Cantonment board consisting of the elected as well as the unelected members (as constituted under Section 13-A of the said Act by 30.7.2003. No orders as to costs.