PESHAWAR, Sept 11: The Peshawar High Court on Monday dismissed a writ petition filed by Dera Ismail Khan District Nazim Mukhtar Ahmad Khan challenging the convening of a council session for deciding a no-confidence motion against him.

A bench of the court, comprising Justice Fazlur Rehman Khan and Justice Jehanzeb Raheem, did not stay the impugned session.

The naib nazim of D. I. Khan had convened the session on Monday to decide the no-trust motion moved by two members of the district council.

Earlier, the session had been convened by the secretary of the council on Aug 17 for deciding the motion. But Mr Khan had challenged the notice in the high court and on Sep 5 the court had ruled that the notice was illegal for the secretary had no powers under the NWFP Local Government Ordinance to convene a session. Later, the motion was again moved and the naib nazim convened the session which was challenged by Mr Khan.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that section 24 of the Local Government Ordinance, under which the motion had been moved, was in conflict with the spirit of the law.

He argued that union council nazims elected the district nazim and a no-trust motion had to be decided only by members of the district council.

The bench observed how the court could restrain the members from exercising their legal right.

Meanwhile, the bench granted interim relief to a former union council nazim from D. I. Khan and restrained a member of the district council from casting vote in Monday’s session.

The bench was hearing a writ petition filed by former nazim Faqir Ashfaqullah, who had challenged an order of the election tribunal declaring the runner-up candidate as elected nazim after disqualifying him. He said the tribunal should have ordered re-election, instead of declaring the losing candidate as nazim.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that with the main petition, they had filed an application seeking interim relief that the respondent nazim should be restrained from casting vote in Monday’s session.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court had recently ruled that in case of de-seating of a member, re-election should be held on the seat, instead of declaring the runner-up as elected member.