NIZAM DIN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KABIRWALA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which challenged the convening of a no-confidence motion meeting against the petitioner, the Chairman of a Town Committee. The core legal question was whether a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman counts towards the statutory six-month interval required before a subsequent motion can be moved against a successor Chairman under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the statutory restriction regarding the six-month interval is personal to the Chairman against whom the motion is moved. The Court clarified that the 'date of assumption of office' referenced in the statute refers specifically to the incumbent Chairman, not their predecessor. Consequently, the interval calculation for a no-confidence motion against a successor Chairman begins from the date that specific individual assumed office, rather than being tethered to the history of motions moved against previous officeholders. This interpretation prevents a successor from facing a motion before completing their own six-month tenure.
- Does a no-confidence motion moved against a previous Chairman count towards the six-month interval required before a motion can be moved against a successor Chairman?
- From what date is the six-month period for a no-confidence motion calculated under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a successor Chairman face a no-confidence motion before completing six months in office?
- Section 31, Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 31(2), Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
- Section 31(3), Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑ The petitioner had succeeded to office of Chairman, Town Committee, Makhdoompur Pahoran, on 26‑10‑1981, the previous Chairman having been ousted by a vote of no‑confidence passed against him on 7‑9‑1981. However, a requisition for consideration of a no‑confidence motion was moved against the petitioner, too, on 11‑8‑1982,' for which purpose the Assistant Commissioner, Kabirwala, convened a meeting on 25‑8‑1982. This was challenged by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court,. Multan Beach, but the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 12‑12‑1982.
2. The contention raised before us, as had been raised before the High Court but repelled, is that as a vote of no‑confidence had been passed on 7‑9‑1981 against the previous Chairman, the motion against the petitioner being a second of subsequent motion within the meaning of subsections (2) and (3) of section 31 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the same was barred having been brought before the expiry of six monthly intervals.
3. Under section 31 of the Ordinance, a Chairman shall vacate the office if a vote of no‑confidence is passed against him in the manner prescribed. It has been further laid down in subsections (2) and (3) of this section as follows:
(2) A motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman or Vice‑Chairman shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office and a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six months between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions.
(3) A motion of no‑confidence shall not be competent after the expiry of thirty days beyond every interval of six months provided under subsection (2) and in such a situation it shall be deemed to have been moved and rejected for the purposes of subsection (2)."
4. The law‑makers' intention, as can be gathered from the above provision of law is that no vote of no‑confidence can be moved against a Chairman before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of office, that after six months a resolution can be moved any time but once a resolution has been moved, then, subject to subsection (3), a second or subsequent motion shall not be moved except with an interval of six month between the first and the second motion or any two subsequent motions. This Court has already expressed such view in Sanaullah v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha (P L D 1982 S C 256).
5. The contention that. a motion of no‑confidence moved against the previous Chairman is to be taken into account in computing the interval in regard to a motion against the succeeding Chairman is not supported by the provision of section 31. The words used in subsection (2), that is, "A motion of no‑confidence against a Chairman . . . . . shall not be moved before the expiry of six months from the date of his assumption of the office . . . . . (underlining'' is ours)" make it clear that the date of assumption of office, relevant for the motion, is of that very Chairman against whom the motion is moved and not of a previous Chairman. For, otherwise, since some time must elapse between a motion moved against a previous Chairman and the assumption of office by his successor, the succeeding Chairman may be confronted with a motion of no‑confidence even before he has completed six months of office as Chairman. Clearly such eventuality is not contemplated by the law. The petition has, therefore, no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.