LAHORE, July 23: The LHC has ruled that it is mandatory for the Naib Nazim to convene a council session on receiving a recall motion notice, and he has no authority to determine the validity of the notice or to hold that it lacks the essential constituents of 'reasons to believe'.

The court has given the ruling while directing the Data Ganj Bakhsh Town Naib Nazim to convene the council session on the recall motion of Abdul Samad Ghani and Shahid Saeed.

In his judgement, the judge observed that "the role of Naib Nazim qua notice to move a motion in the tehsil council for recall of Nazim has been specifically provided in Section 63 (2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance which stipulates that on receipt of such notice he shall summon the session of the council not earlier than three days but not later than seven days, if the council is not already in session, for deliberations on notice.

Thus it is mandatory for the Naib Nazim to summon the session of the council on receipt of the notice to move a motion for recall and he cannot determine the validity of initiation of notice for recall."

"While determining the role of Nazim qua notice to move a recall motion it is to be borne in mind that the Naib Nazim under the prevalent scheme of law is a joint candidate with the Nazim as provided under Section 154 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance and they being associated together as joint candidates are to sail and sink together in their election to their offices and thus they are virtually one entity and to invest the Naib Nazim with the authority to declare validity of notice for recall under Section 63 (1) of the ordinance would surely make Naib Nazim a judge of a cause of a person who is his close associate and the Naib Nazim in the ordinary course of human conduct will invariably endeavour his best to scuttle the initiation of every proceeding under Section 63 (1) of ordinance for recall motion of Nazim and thus the very provision for recall motion would become ineffective and thereby the Nazim who had lost support or confidence of the house will be able to perpetuate in his office against the wishes of the house, the electorate and the aspirations of the people which would erode the very purpose of having a duly elected Nazim to provide good governance to the people."

Referring to the return of the recall motion by Mian Usman, the judge observed: "The initiation of notice to move a recall motion is not a judicial proceeding for which material or substance is to be provided.

The only requirement for initiation of notice laid down for recall motion by the SC's judgement is that it should be moved voluntarily and without any temptation and malice which in the present case is amply demonstrated by the conduct of the petitioners."