10 July 2004	Saturday	21 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425

LAHORE, July 9: The Lahore High Court on Friday reinstated Sardar Adil Umar as Iqbal Town Nazim holding that a recall motion passed against him on July 7 could not take effect in any manner whatsoever.

Admitting a writ petition for regular hearing, Chief Justice Iftikhar Husain Chaudhry served notices on the Punjab government, the district coordination officer of Lahore, Town Naib Nazim Mian Javed Ali, the town administration and two union council Naib Nazims, Rana Faryad Ali and Faiz Rasool.

Petitioner Adil Umar submitted through advocate Ahsan Bhoon that the recall motion was passed without the information of the Nazim and without a proper session for the vote.

He submitted that the petitioner-Nazim had never received such a motion and it was through newspaper reports that he came to know about the passage of such a motion. He claimed that he came to know from the news reports that 20 members of the town council had passed a no-confidence move against him at a session whose minutes were not recorded and which was not previously notified.

He contended that the Punjab Local Government Ordinance required a comprehensive procedure for a recall motion for voting. Not even a single such legal condition was met, he submitted.

The petitioner submitted that his subsequent inquiry revealed that a motion was tabled by union council Naib Nazim Rana Faryad and was seconded by another UC Naib Nazim Faiz Rasool.

He stated that upon a question, the tehsil municipal officer (TMO), who was supposed to record minutes of all meetings under the law, informed him that he had not recorded minutes of the session in which voting was held. Similarly, the TMO expressed his ignorance regarding the receipt a motion or the convening of a session whose agenda included the vote on such a motion.

The petitioner alleged that town Naib Nazim Mian Javed fabricated minutes of a fictitious meeting which was never held. The proceedings of that meeting showed that a no-confidence motion was received and was voted on July 7.

According to the petitioner, it was the Naib Nazim who wrote to the secretary of the Election Commission, Punjab, to make arrangements for a by-election to fill in the vacancy created by the ouster of the Nazim.

He submitted that the recall motion did not mention even the date of its presentation and the session convened for a vote. He submitted that neither a motion was given to the Nazim nor was he informed about a session as was required under the law.

Another point raised by the petitioner was that some of the members who were disqualified, were said to be present at the session where the motion was debated and voted.