' Invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the order, dated 16-9-2002 passed by Zila Council, endorsed through Notification No,PA/ZN/17-20, dated 20-9-2002 issued and got published by Zila Nazim, Rahimyar Khan, respondent No, l.
2. Facts in brief as entered into the writ petition, narrated and stated through arguments of the learned counsel, and mentioned in the parawise reply and comments submitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 are that petitioner was Chairman, Market Committee, Liaqatpur, District Rahimyar Khan constituted under section 12 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Committee Ordinance XXI,II of 1978. On 22-8-2002, an application was addressed to Director, Agricultural E&M, Government of the Punjab, Lahore by the petitioner, in which he informed the aforesaid Officer, that he (petitioner) had resigned from the office of Chairman, Market Committee, Liaqatpur, as he had to participate in the coming election of Provincial and National Assembly. On 24-8-2002 through another letter the petitioner informed the aforesaid Officer stating therein that he had abandoned the idea and intention to resign, so he had not dispatched his resignation to the District Council, Rahimyar Khan.
3. On 16-9-2002, a resolution No,5 was tabled in the meeting of the proceedings of District Council, Rahimyar Khan. It was stated therein that Secretary, Market Committee, Liaqatpur, had informed in writing that Haji Muhammad Saif Ullah. Had resigned from Chairmanship of the Market Committee.
Liaqatpur from 23-8-2002. Acting upon this information, the House of District Council, Rahimyar Khan went on to accept the alleged resignation of Haji Muhammad Saif Ullah Khan unanimously and thereafter, applying the powers of rule 11(2) of Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 (Amended in 2001) the Zila Nazim, Rahimyar Khan got issued a Notification No,PA/ZN/17- 20, dated 20-9-2002 deseating the petitioner not only from the Chairmanship but also from the Membership of the Market Committee. Liaqatpur w.e.f, 23-8-2002 on the basis of above noted resolution of District Council, Rahimyar Khan, dated 16-9-2002.
4. The petitioner has argued the case himself while representing respondents Nos.1 and 2, learned counsel Mr. M.A. Rehman Qureshi has addressed this Court. According to the petitioner he had never submitted any resignation to District Council or to Zila Council Chairman but due to rivalry in the political field, the petitioner was removed on the basis of alleged resignation which was never presented or submitted by him. In such an event, as per petitioner, the resolution of District Council.
Rahimyar Khan and issuance of notification from respondent No,1 District Nazim was based on mala fide, illegal and unlawful. He has argued that violation of rules 11 and 13 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 has also been committed, therefore, these order and notification may be declared illegal and unlawful. To support his contention, he has relied upon Mr. A.K. Fazalul Quader Chaudhry v. Syed Shah Nawaz and others PLD 1966 SC 105; Mirza Tahir Beg v. Syed Kausar Ali Shah and others PLD 1976 SC 504 and Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v.
President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473. To be more precise in his arguments, he has stated that as no resignation was ever addressed/dispatched to the District Council and the Zila Nazim of Rahimyar Khan, therefore, the petitioner could not be removed from the Chairmanship and Membership of the Market Committee, Liaqatpur.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed to the arguments of the petitioner by stating that the application addressed to the Director, Agricultural E&M Government of the Punjab, Lahore was received initially by the D.C.O. On 5-9-2002, which was afterward dispatched to District Nazim and received by him on 9-9-2002. Thereafter in the meeting of District Council held on 16-9-2002, the resignation was rightly accepted by the District Council, Rahimyar Khan. He has laid more stress on the fact that the application was handwritten by the petitioner so resignation tendered was voluntary and with free-will and the circumstances mentioned therein to participate in the General Election had also supported their view that it was tendered without any coercion and in this process. The District Council and the District Nazim had no mala fide intention.
6. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel and scanning the record, I considers it necessary to reproduce the words of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market (General) Rules. 1979 for ready reference:-- "Termination of membership and filling of casual vacancies.
(2) Any member of the market committee may resign from his office by tendering resignation in writing to the Chairman, and if the member tendering resignation is himself the Chairman, he shall submit his resignation to [the Zila Council and in case there is no Zila Council to the Deputy Commissioner who shall forward the same to the Government]."
7. The words used in sub-rule (2) of rule 11 of the above mentioned Ordinance have clearly provided that the Chairman tendering his resignation has to submit his resignation to District Council. In the instant case, the alleged resignation was never admittedly submitted to the District Council by the petitioner himself. It is the case of the respondents that the application was addressed to the Director, Agricultural E&M but was received through the D.C.O. By them.
' Therefore, the first essential requirement of sub-rule(2) of rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules was not fulfilled. Another precondition which emerges out from this sub-rule is that the resignation shall be submitted to the District Council. The word "submit" entered into sub-rule is a vital importance. The letter or the application of resignation whatever it may be called. Addressed and sent to a Director cannot be termed submission of application to the District Council. According to the Blacks Law Dictionary by Henry Compbell Black, M.A. Seventeenth Edition, the word "submit" has been defined as "as yielding to authority", while word "submission" has been explained in the following words:-- ' "To commit, to the discretion of another; to yield to the will of another; To propound; to present for determination."
8. So the import of the word "submit" is to yield to the will of another person for the exercise of discretion of the other. When the intention was not to submit to a competent /concerned authority/person, it cannot be considered to be a correct resignation. The offer from the Tenderer of the resignation to exercise the discretion as to accept or reject the resignation cannot come into play unless it is conscious presentation of resignation to the competent authority soliciting for his yes or no decision. From it the conclusion is clearly deducible that the person must offer his resignation or submit his offer to the competent person, with intention for getting exercised his right of decision in the shape and form of acceptance or rejection. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner had never submitted his resignation to District Council. Not a single word has been used even in the application to give powers to District Council to exercise such powers to accept or reject the resignation. The words found underneath the application, addressed to Director.
Agriculture are {{URDU TEXT}} Firstly, these words are not handwritten by the petitioner. Secondly this is only an information if considered to be true. Thirdly, it has originated from the Secretary, Market Committee who has got no authority to force the petitioner to submit his resignation before the District Nazim unless the petitioner himself had of his own motion addressed it the District Council. It may be explained here that according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the above mentioned Rules, the submission of resignation to the District Council was mandatory and not to the District Nazim. A letter/application written but kept pending. Or not addressed or sent to the proper authority cannot be considered a true and correct submission. In Mirza Tahir Baig v. Syed Kausar PLD 1976 SC 504 when Speaker of the Provincial Assembly had not enquired into genuineness or validity of the resignation and had given it an automatic affect, the resignation was not accepted as having been legally defective. Reliance can also be placed on a citation reported in Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 473. The procedure for submission of resignation and the requirements to declare it to be valid or operative was laid down in it. I quote the beautiful words used at page 615 in above noted judgment which are:-- ' "Resignations are resignations. If they are not resignations they are not worth of paper on which they are written."
9. I have also got a few words to reveal, which are as follows:-- ' "To reign is a game of gain!
' To resign is a loss of vital vein!
' No sane can loose it in vain!
' Unless compelled by torrential rains!"
10. There is a legal maxim "Expressum facit cessare facitum" that if doing of a particular thing is made lawful, doing of something in conflict of that will be unlawful. So, the things must be done in the way/procedure prescribed for it, to get its validity in the eye of law. Otherwise, it would not be conferred legality. E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 SC 536 and Fateh Khan v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1683 are supporting this view.
11. Therefore, on the basis of above noted discussion, the writ petition is accepted and the decision of District Council, Rahimyar Khan dated 16-9-2002 through Resolution No,5 accepting the alleged resignation of Haji Muhammad Saif Ullah Khan, Chairman, Market Committee, Liaqatpur and issuance of Notification No,PA/ZN/17-20, dated 20-7-2002 by respondent No,1 are declared illegal and unlawful. Consequently, the petitioner shall be deemed to hold the office Of Chairman, Market Committee, Liaqatpur.