HYDERABAD, Aug 22: A division bench of the Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, on Friday held the resolution, adopted in the meeting of Union Council-2 Qasimabad against the Naib Nazim, Saifullah Memon, as well as a subsequent notification unseating him were passed in violation of the provisions of section 89 and 92 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 2001.

The verdict, authored by Justice Amir Hani Muslim, ruled that Mr Memon shall continue to hold office of the Naib Nazim Union Council-2 of Qasimabad Taluka.

The petitioner had challenged his disqualification through a resolution in the meeting of Union Council-2 held on June 5.

He cited Union Council-2 acting Nazim, the district coordination officer and the secretary, local government, as respondents.

He said the acting Nazim disliked him as he used to raise voice for Union Council in the Taluka Council, and added that the acting Nazim was pressing the Taluka Council to release funds for development schemes of the Union Council.

He said that after finishing the agenda of the meeting, the acting Nazim took out a paper from his pocket and started reading that a councillor, Lal Bux Bagrani, presented motion that Mr Memon was working against the interests of the union council.

He said that when he stood to present his defence, some members objected saying that she should be given an opportunity of defence. Upon which, he said, the acting Nazim called for secret balloting which was already prepared and he had to boycott the secret balloting in protest.

Yousuf Leghari, the petitioner’s counsel, argued that his client was removed from office without due course of law and that he was condemned unheard.

The state counsel, Masood A. Noorani, also conceded that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to defend or answer charges levelled against him.

The counsel for acting Nazim, Aziz Sheikh, said that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner but instead he started abusing the acting Nazim.

He said that the motion of no confidence was fully covered by law.

After going through section 92 and its sub-sections of the SLGO, the court said that admittedly the motion was moved when the council was in session and there was nothing on record to confirm that the petitioner was issued written notice of motion under section 92(1) of the SLGO 2001.

The verdict ruled that the allegations were vague.

It maintained that such actions, circumventing procedure would shake the confidence of electorates of the constituency and would have far-reaching effects on the public in general.

The court observed that minutes of the meeting did not authorize the acting Nazim to preside over a session in which a no-confidence motion was passed.

The court declared that the resolution and the subsequent notification was in violation of the provisions of SLGO 2001 and the petitioner shall continue to hold the office of Naib Nazim.