MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging a no-confidence resolution passed against the petitioner as Chairman of a local body. The core legal question concerns whether alleged procedural irregularities committed before and during the meeting convening the no-confidence resolution vitiate the outcome. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal must be refused, determining that minor procedural technicalities should not be used to impose the leader of a thin minority on a body, especially when twelve out of seventeen members voted against the petitioner. Furthermore, the court held that factual inquiries into procedural irregularities are not warranted at this stage. The key principle laid down is that substantive democratic expressions of a clear majority in local bodies will not be overturned on the basis of minor procedural technicalities or require extensive factual inquiries without compelling grounds.
- Can a no-confidence resolution passed by a clear majority be set aside on the ground of minor procedural technicalities?
- Will the Supreme Court conduct a detailed factual enquiry to determine procedural irregularities in a no-confidence meeting at the leave to appeal stage?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 9-12-1984 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a no-confidence resolution passed against the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of a local body, was dismissed.
2. Admittedly the resolution was passed by to-third majority of the total number of votes. Twelve out of seventeen voted against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel has contended however that there were procedural irregularities committed before the convening of the meeting as_ also during the meeting.
4. After hearing him we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal for to reasons. One, that it is not denied that twelve out of seventeen votes were in fact against the petitioner. It will not be proper to impose the leader of a very thin minority on a body which has emerged out of an electoral process on the ground of minor procedural technicality; and to, the points raised regarding procedural irregularity cannot be determined in favour of the petitioner unless entire findings of fact are set aside after holding a fresh detailed factual enquiry at this stage which in the circumstances is not called for.
5. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and this petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.