HYDERABAD, Nov 27: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has admitted a constitutional petition, praying the court to declare the proceedings of the third session of the Zila Council Nawabshah, particularly the formation of committees, item No5 of the agenda as illegal, null and void.

The petitioner, Khurram Yar Muhammad, a member of the Zila Council, moved the Sindh High Court through lawyer P.M. Amer.

The bench comprising Mr Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Mr Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany has issued notices to Naib Nazim/Convener of Zila Council Nawabshah, Jam Feroz Unar, member Zila Council and Secretary Local Government as respondents.

The matter has been fixed for hearing on Dec 5.

Advocate Hassan Mehmood Baig has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court.

The petitioner claimed that on Oct 11 a meeting of the Zila Council was convened. The first two items of the meeting was a recitation of the Holy Quran and confirmation of minutes of the meeting held earlier whereas introduction of members of Zila Council Nawabshah, revalidation of budget of Zila Council, and formation of committees were respectively the 3rd, 4th and 5th items of the agenda.

The petitioner said that the Naib Nazim/Convener had undeniably and knowingly committed an illegality and serious irregularity of mandatory provisions of sub-section iv of section 112 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 2001 that clearly provided in unambiguous terms that “no other business shall be taken up by a Council during the budget session”.

He said that the Naib Nazim/convener seemed to have rendered another illegally as well as by “branding” said agenda of the third session of the council as an “order” instead of terming or calling it an “agenda”.

He said that one of the items of the agenda was formation of the committees, under provisions of sub-rule 3 of rule 28 Sindh Council (Conduct of Business) Rules 1980.

He stated that it had been made clear under provisions of sub-rule 3 of rule 28 (chapter v) of the Sindh Council (conduct of business) rules 1980 that election of members of committees and sub-committees shall be by secret ballot and by “proportional representation”.

The word “proportional representation” had been elaborately explained under this section and elections of all candidates for one committee and sub-committee shall be held at one and the same time, he argued.

He maintained that one member having only one vote to cast in favour of only one candidate and requisite number of candidates, receiving higher votes in descending order shall stand elected to the committees, sub-committees as the case may be.

He further said that on the same day of the session the assembly was in progress the convener introduced a new pattern — joint candidacy — in the panel of electing four members of the Public Safety Commission all of whom were to be elected at the same time and by simple majority.

He pointed out that the convener conducted the election on the basis of “panels” whereas the law provided for election on proportional representation basis adding that in the light of the proportional representation the convener would have secured only two seats, therefore adopted illegal method of formation of panels which were not permissible under the law.

The petitioner said that out of 78 seats of the Zila Council of Nawabshah only 67 members were present and the convener claimed that 38 of them were his voters, while the remaining 28 were supporting the petitioner.

He said that respondent No2, Jam Feroze, has also been elected as member of the Public Safety Commission contrary to the fact that he was member of a three-member committee that was appointed for presiding over the session in absence of the convener.

He said that the law did not permit a person to hold two offices at the same time then how could have the respondent become a member of two committees by violating the law.

He said that because of the overbearing attitude of the convener the petitioner had walked out from the session which ended in confusion and chaos.

He accused the convener of flouting basic and mandatory provisions of the law in relation to conducting and smooth running of business of the meeting of the Zila Council.

He claimed that election of the members of the Public Safety Commission was not only illegal but were pre-planned and mala fide.

He prayed the court to declare that the proceedings initiated on Oct 11 and 12 by the convener were prima facie illegal and beyond jurisdiction.

Hassan Mehmood Baig, amicus curiae, on the question of maintainability of the petition claimed that it was maintainable because jurisdiction of the court could only be considered to be barred on the basis of specific provision of the constitution.

He drew the attention of the court to various articles of the constitution and pointed out that the same were inapplicable and, therefore, the petition was maintainable.

Masood A. Noorani, Additional AG Sindh, argued that jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition was itself premised on the language of article 199 of the Constitution and the same would be barred if any alternative remedy under the law was available.