Pakistan Case Law
1982 PLD Lahore 217

MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs JAMES MASIH AND 8 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1982 PLD Lahore 217
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No. 14 of 1981,
Date1981-06-08
Judge(s)Abdul Shakurul Salam and Sardar Muhammad
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner, an elected Chairman of a Union Council, challenged his removal following a no-confidence motion passed against him on December 18, 1980. The petitioner argued that a notification issued on December 15, 1980, which mandated that the Assistant Commissioner preside over no-confidence meetings, should have been effective from the date of its issuance, rather than its publication in the official gazette on December 21, 1980. The core legal question was whether a notification becomes operative upon its issuance or upon its publication in the official gazette. The Court held that the notification only became operative upon its publication in the official gazette. Consequently, the proceedings conducted on December 18, 1980, under the existing law were valid. The Court further noted that the petitioner had lost the confidence of the entire body of members, making the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction inappropriate. The principle laid down is that a notification generally becomes operative only from the date of its publication in the official gazette, and cannot retrospectively invalidate proceedings conducted under the law existing prior to such publication.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a government notification become operative from the date of its issuance or the date of its publication in the official gazette?
  • Can a notification published in the official gazette retrospectively nullify proceedings held under the previously existing law?
  • Is the exercise of discretionary constitutional jurisdiction appropriate to restore a Chairman who has lost the confidence of the entire body of members?
no-confidence motionUnion Councilofficial gazettenotificationconstitutional petitiondiscretionary jurisdictionoperative date

1. ABDUL SHARURYJL SALAIN, J.-The petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Union Council No. 79, Chak No. 45/S. B., Tehsil and District Sargodha, on 20-12-1979. For consideration of a no-confidence motion against him, a meeting of the council was held under the Vice-Chairmanship of the Union Council on 18-12-1980 and all the members voted against him. He was thus unseated. He has filed this constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing far him has stated that the rule under which the Vice-Chairman presided had been amended by the Notification dated IS-12-1980, whereby the Assistant Commissioner was to preside over the meeting for a no-confidence motion against a Chairman of the Union Council, It is, however, admitted that the Notification was gazetted on 21-12-1980. Learned counsel submits that notwithstanding the publication in the gazetted on 21-12-1980, the Notification came into effect when it was made on 18-12-1980.

3. The contention has no force. A similar point arose in the case of Abdul Ghani v. Muhammad Suleman and another (1) where after reference to various authorities, it was held that the Notification became operative from the day it was published in the official Gazette. The judgment, with approval, was upheld by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Suleman etc. v. Abdul Ghani (2). The matter is, therefore, clinched. On the day when the no- confidence motion was passed against the petitioner, the amendment had not been published in the gazette and consequently could not retrospectively nullify the proceeding held in accordance with the then existing law. Moreover, these is no way of saying that the Notification made on 18-12- 1980 in Lahore reached. Sargodha where the proceeding took place the same day. Further, the petitioner had lost confidence of the entire body of members whose Chairman he was. Having' lost the confidence of the entire electorate the petitioner can hardly hope toy succeed in a constitutional petition requiring exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to be put in an elected office.

4. This petition is, therefore, dismissed) but in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) PLD 1978 Lah. 897(2) PLD 1978 SC 190

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.