HYDERABAD, April 20: The Sindh High Court, Hyderabad bench, on Wednesday quashed no-confidence proceedings against the taluka nazim of Kot Ghulam Mohammad, Mirpurkhas, and allowed his petition, holding that he would remain the nazim. Petitioner Arif Ahmad Bhurgari had cited 16 officials as well as the taluka naib nazim and members of the taluka council as respondents.

He said respondent Mehboob Ahmad Khera had tabled a no-confidence motion in the taluka council on April 8, saying the petitioner was working against people’s welfare, not performing his duties in accordance with local government laws and behaving improperly with council members.

He said no-confidence proceedings were conducted through a secret ballot in which all seven members voted against him and a copy of the resolution was sent to the district nazim and the DCO of Mirpurkhas.

The petitioner said that on an application of council members on April 9, the convener (respondent taluka naib nazim) called an urgent session in which the convener was elected the acting taluka nazim and intimation was sent to the district nazim and the DCO.

He argued that all proceedings had been pre-planned by the respondents, Mehboob Ahmad Khera, Abdul Sattar Khaskheli, Sham Sunder, Mohammad Hashim Bhurgari and Zahida Parveen, whose own membership stood annulled for not attending five consecutive meetings of the council.

The petitioner said the resolution against him was not sustainable because he had not been given any opportunity to defend himself as envisaged in sections 63(1) and 63(7) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001.

His counsel contended that the post of taluka nazim could not be considered vacant because of such a resolution till it was notified by the Provincial Election Commissioner. He further said that only one of the council members could officiate as the taluka nazim which was not done in the present case.

He prayed the court to declare that proceedings of the April 8 meeting and the passage of the resolution illegal.

Sindh Additional Advocate General Masood A. Noorani submitted that it should be determined whether the petitioner had been given a notice on recall motion and whether he had been afforded any opportunity in the light of section 63(7) of the SLGO, 2001.

The court asked Mr Noorani to read over contents of the petition and the rejoinder.

Abdul Sattar Khaskheli in his rejoinder said on his request, the petitioner had been given a copy of the motion. He denied that there was any pre-planning or collusion among the respondents.

He claimed that the petitioner had deliberately remained absent from the session and five other members had also not turned up.

The court ruled that there was no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had been given any notice and the proceedings of the no-confidence motion against him were not in consonance with provisions of section 63(7) of the SLGO.