SUBHANUDDIN vs NATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION BUREAU through Chairman
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment regarding a no-confidence motion initiated against the petitioner. The core legal questions involve whether the motion could be validly passed without strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001, particularly given that Village and Neighborhood Councils had not yet been constituted. The Court also examines whether the notice served upon the petitioner was lawful, given the alleged failure to adhere to mandatory procedural requirements, and whether the petitioner was afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and defence as required by the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court considers whether the repetition of a rejected no-confidence motion, allegedly influenced by local government officials lacking locus standi, was tainted by mala fide intentions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, converting the petition into an appeal, while rejecting the request for interim relief due to the prevailing circumstances of the case.
- Can a no-confidence motion be passed without strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001?
- Is the notice requirement under section 85(1) of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001, mandatory or directory?
- Does the repetition of a rejected no-confidence motion, allegedly influenced by officials lacking locus standi, constitute mala fide action?
- Must a petitioner be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing and defence as envisaged in section 85(6) of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001?
- Section 85(1), N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001
- Section 85(4), N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001
- Section 85(6), N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.--- After having heard Barrister Masood Kausar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner, Mr.Hamid Farooq Durrani, learned Deputy Attorney-General for National Reconstruction Bureau, who has not supported the impugned judgment, Dr. Hussain Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of respondent, scanning the entire record and perusing the judgment impugned, we are inclined to grant leave, inter alia, on the following points:--
(i) Whether the motion of no-confidence/recall could have been passed without strict compliance of the provisions as enumerated in section 85(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) as admittedly the Village Councils and Neighborhood Councils are yet to be constituted?
(ii) Whether the notice served upon the petitioner can be termed as lawful which was issued in oblivion of the provisions as contained in section 85(1) of the Ordinance which cannot be treated as directory having a definite adverse effect on the political career and future of the petitioner?
(iii) Whether the entire proceedings initiated and finalized qua no-confidence motion without observing the mandatory formalities are without lawful authority and jurisdiction?
(iv) Whether proper_ opportunity of hearing and defence as envisaged in section 85(6) of the Ordinance has been afforded to the petitioner?
(v) Whether the no-confidence motion rejected being violative of subsections (1), (4) of section 85 of the Ordinance could have been repeated after a couple of days with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives against the petitioner due to intervention of District Nazim Chitral, District Coordination Officer, Chitral and Assistant Coordination Officer, Chitral having no locus standi in such-like affairs?
2. The petition is, accordingly, converted into appeal which may be fixed during next month after having the approval of his Lordship he .Hon'ble Chief Justice being election matter.
3. In view of the prevalent situation no interim relief could be granted as pressed time and again by Barrister Masood Kausar, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and resultantly C.M.A. Bearing No,471-P of 2003 is rejected.