Ch. WALAYAT KHAN vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, GUJRAT
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding a no-confidence motion. The petitioner, elected as Chairman of the Union Council, challenged the notice issued for convening a meeting to consider a third no-confidence motion against him, contending that he did not receive the mandatory seven clear days' notice under the relevant rules. The core legal question concerned the validity of the notice and the procedural requirements for tabling a no-confidence motion under the applicable local government laws. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding the validity of the notice was not raised before the High Court and that under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, a motion could be tabled after six clear months within a prescribed thirty-day period. The petition was found to be without merit and was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that procedural objections not raised before the lower court cannot be entertained for the first time, and the statutory timelines provided under the local government framework for no-confidence motions must be strictly construed.
- Can a party raise a new factual or legal contention regarding the validity of a notice for the first time before the Supreme Court without having raised it before the High Court?
- Within what timeframe can a subsequent no-confidence motion be tabled under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- What is the consequence under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 if no motion is tabled within the stipulated thirty-day period after six clear months?
- Section 31(2), Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 31(3), Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Rule 3(2), Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman pr Vice-Chairman) Rules 1980
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-10-1982 passed in Writ Petition No. 4204 of 1982.
2. Petitioner was elected as Chairman of the Union Council Alam Garb, Tehsil and District Gujrat, and assumed his office as Chairman of the said Union Council on 17-1-1980. In July, 1980 a No- Confidence Motion was moved by some members against the petitioner. A meeting was, there-- fore, convened on 24-7-1980 to consider the Motion but the same failed. Again in May, 1982 a No- Confidence Motion was moved against the petitioner on which the respondent Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat passed an order requisitioning a Meeting ' to consider the said No- Confidence Motion on 14-6-1982. This order was challenged by the petition in the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No. 2712/82 on the ground that as a Meeting for the earlier No-Confidence Motion had been convened but the Motion failed on 24-7-1980 the subsequent Motion has to be made within time pres--cribed by section 31 (2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordnance, 1979.
The petitioner succeeded and it was held by the learned High Court that the said motion did not fall within the time prescribed by law, the proceedings taken thereon were without lawful authority and the Notice issued for con--vening the meeting on 14-6-1982 was of no legal effect.
3. Third time a No-Confidence Motion was moved the next day after the aforesaid judgment of the learned High Court. Respondent issued a notice the same day on 18-10-1982 for 25-10-1982 for considering the Motion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman pr Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1980 a seven days clear notice has to be given .For such a notice. The said notice was received by the petitioner on 21- 10-1982, thus giving him only 4 days' time to contest the said Motion. Petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 4204 -of 1982 which resulted in the impugned order.
5. We have considered the contentions raised by: the learned counsel but we do not find any substance in it. The point regarding validity of the notice was not raised .Before the learned Judges of the High Court. We also find that under section 31(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 it is only after six clear months that a. Motion could be tabled which can be done under section 31(3) of the said ordinance within 30 days which, in turn, means that if no- Motion is tabled; it shall be deemed to have bee moved and rejected. Consequently, 30 days period has to be allowed in a case where no Motion is moved. The, petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.