2018 C L C 1650
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Nazeer Ahmed Longove, JJ
OBAIDULLAH JAN BABAT and 2 others ----Petitioners
Versus
SPEAKER, BALOCHISTAN ASSEMBLY and 2 others ----Respondents
C.P. No.556 of 2018, decided on 21st May, 2018.
Provincial Assembly of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974--
----Rr. 14, 25, 202, 204, 205 & 220---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.69 & 127---Suspension of
elected members of Provincial Assembly ---Petitioners were elected mem bers of Provincial
Assembly and were aggrieved of the notification whereby they were suspended from the service of Assembly for remaining sittings of budget session---Petitioners had alleged that act of the Presiding Officer was with malafides and ulterior motives and in excess of the powers available
under the relevant law ---Validity ---Only allegation which could have been made out was of
irregularity of the procedure and nothing else thus validity of such proceedings in view of Art.69(1) of the Constituti on, could not be questioned in court of law; it further restrained to
challenge authority of Presiding Officer to whom power was vested for regulating procedure, to
conduct the business and to maintain order in Assembly ---Indemnity was available to Presidi ng
Officer by the mandate of the Constitution ---Members of the Assembly had to follow the Rules
and to observe the conduct as required by R.220 of Provincial Assembly of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974 ---Constitutional petitio n was dismissed in
circumstances.
Muhammad Anwar Durrani v. Province of Baluchistan PLD 1989 Quetta 25 ref.
Amanullah Kanrani and Naseebullah Tareen for Petitioners.
Nemo for the Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18th May, 2018.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ----The petitioners Obaidullah Jan Babat,
Nasrullah Khan Zayray and Agha Syed Liaquat Ali, the elected members of the Balochistan
Assembly, questioned Notification dated 18th May 2018, whereby they were suspended from the service of the Assembly for the remaining sittings of the budget session. This Notification was
issued when the powers available under Rule 204 read with Rule 14 of the Provincial Assembly
of Balochistan, Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, 1974 (The Rules, 1974) were
exercised by the Chairperson in response to the conduct as adopted by the petitioners in the sitting.
2. It was case of the petitioners that the session was convened by the Governor of
Balochistan for the purpose of presentation of Budget 2018 -19 on 17th May 2018. That in
absence of the Speaker one of the nominated members of the panel presided the session. That the Presiding Officer without any reason, and despite of the fact that there was no issue of quorum adjourned the sitting, and after half an hour without having any jurisdiction again convened the session. That the objections raised by the petitioners on the alleged illegality committed by the Presiding Officer were not considered, and the sitting continued. That the Presiding Officer without any legal justification suspended the membership of the petitioners for the remaining sittings of the budget session. The act on part of the Presiding Officer was claimed to be with malafides and with ulterior motives, and in excess of the powers available under the Rules.
3. The petition was pressed on the grounds that a Presiding Officer is only authorized to
preside over a particular session, thus once it was adjourned the Presiding Officer, become functus officio left with no power to re -summon the house on a dif ferent time, or date to that of
already fixed; that the power exercised was in excess, thus was of no legal effect, that Rule 25 of the Rules, 1974 was not followed, thus invalidated the whole process, that the impugned order was politically motivated, as the Presiding Officer was part of the Treasury Bench and the act done with an intent not to permit the opposition to participate in the budget session. The prayer was for setting aside of the impugned Notification dated 18th May 2018.
4. The learned counse l for the petitioners made his submissions at length. He repeated the
stance taken in the petition with no addition. He pressed the instant petition while contending that no power vests with the Presiding Officer to re -call a session once had been adjourne d by his
own order. Thus when the initial action was without any authority, followed by the order for suspension of the petitioners were of no legal effect. The learned counsel placed reliance on a case reported in PLD 1989 Quetta -25, titled as Muhammad Anwar Durrani v. Province of
Baluchistan in C.P. No. 290 of 1988.
5. The petitioners were aggrieved of the Notification issued on suspension of the petitioners
in exercise of the powers conferred to a Presiding Officer by Rule 204 read with Rule 14 of the
Rules, 1974. The contents of the petition and the submissions of the learned counsel made it
evident that the Presiding Officer presided the sitting for the budget session in absence of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker on the strength of the nomination made by the Speaker of the
Assembly in exercise of powers available under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1974. The Presiding Officer entrusted with the same powers as of the Speaker when presiding over a sitting. It was within the mandate of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. It reads as under:
"The Presiding Officer shall have the same powers as the Speaker when presiding over a sitting, and all references in these rules to the Speaker shall be deemed to include a reference to the Presiding Officer."
Though Rule 12 of the Rules , 1974 enumerate some of the powers and functions of the
Speaker specifically, but by virtue of Rule 14 all provisions with reference to the Speaker applied
to the Presiding Officer when presiding over a sitting.
6. The main grievance of the petitioners was that the Presiding Officer while presiding the
session was not empowered to adjourn the sittings or the sessions and once adjourned to re -call
it, thus the act on her part was unable to meet the requirement of the Rules, thus of no legal
effect. There se ems to be some confusion, as the terms "session" and "sitting" were used
simultaneously with same meaning and sense. Both these terms used in the Rules with distinct meanings and purposes. Rule 2 sub- Rule (1) clauses (w) & (x) of the Rules, 1974 defined them
as under:
"2. (1) In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires:
(w) "Session" means the period commencing on the day of the first meeting of the
Assembly after having been summoned and ending on the day the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved:
(x) "Sitting" means the meeting of the Assembly or any of its Committees from the
commencement of its business to the termination of the business for the day:"
7. It is to remind that the nomination of the panel of Chairmen as contained in Rule 13 of
the R ules, 1974 is meant for presiding the sitting, and this nomination is to be made before
commencement of each session by the Speaker. In context thereof Rule 22 of the Rules, 1974 would be relevant. It placed a power with the Speaker either to adjourn a sit ting of the Assembly,
or if he so thinks fit called sitting of the Assembly at a time and date different from that to which it was earlier adjourned. In addition thereto Rule 195 of the Rules, 1974 empowered a Speaker to adjourn sitting of the Assembly for want of quorum and for the purpose a proper procedure is
provided therein. While Rule 205 of the Rules, 1974 is in addition thereto. It also empowered a Speaker either to suspend any sitting for a time specified by him or to adjourn the Assembly. This pow er become available when there is grave disorder arising in the Assembly. In view of
the referred to Rules a Presiding Officer while presiding a sitting within the mandate of Rule 13, have all the powers to either adjourn, suspend or to call a sitting diff erent to the date it was
adjourned earlier as available to the Speaker as entrusted to him by virtue of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. In the case in hand the Presiding Officer in absence of the Speaker conducted the proceedings as one of the nominated persons from Panel of Chairmen and exercised the powers available to the Chair within the mandate of the Rules, 1974. No occasion of excess of authority shown or specified on part of the Presiding Officer, neither any paper was attached with the petition in support thereof, nor the law was quoted, violation whereof was claimed.
8. As far the Notification in question was concerned, the petitioners pressed that it was a
politically motivated act on part of the Presiding Officer resulted in deprivation of their righ ts
guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The contents of the Notification
revealed that the order of suspension was made by the Presiding Officer in exercise of the powers available under Rule 204 read with Rule 14 of the Rules, 1974. The reason for exercise of the power, as contained in the Notification, was that the members, four in numbers, disregarded and challenged the authority of the Chair, using abusive language and persistently and willfully obstructed the business of the Assembly. All the four were suspended from the service of the Assembly for remaining sittings of the budget sessions, except one three were
before this Court. Rule 204 of the Rules, 1974 authorized a Speaker to take action against a
member while observing his conduct in the Assembly. While Rule 202 of the Rules, 1974 placed
a liability on the Speaker to preserve order of the Assembly, thus placed all the necessary powers with the Speaker for the purpose of enforcing his decisions. Rule 204 of the Rules, 197 4
elaborate the procedure for the purpose also, reproduction would be beneficial:
"204. (1) The Speaker may, if he deems it necessary, name a Member who disregards the authority of the Speaker or abuses these rules by persistently and willfully obstructing the
business of the Assembly.
(2) If a Member is so named by the Speaker, he shall forthwith put the question that the
Member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Assembly for period not exceeding the remainder of the session:
Provided that t he Assembly may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such
suspension be terminated.
(3) A Member suspended under this rule shall forthwith withdraw from the precincts of
the Assembly."
The proviso attached to Sub- Rule (2) of the Rule is wit h a remedy.
9. In view of the described state of facts and the law a power available to the Presiding
Officer was exercised in due course, ended in an adverse order against the petitioners. Nothing annexed with the petition to disclose the mala fides on pa rt of the Presiding Officer, and her
politically motivated inimical attitude towards the petitioners. The session was stated to be once
adjourned to some other date, but re -called on same day. Nothing placed in support thereof. It
was not clear that the po wer was exercised either under Rule 22 of the Rules or the
circumstances compelled the Presiding Officer to exercise power, within the ambit of Rule 205 of the Rules, 1974.
10. It was learnt from the newspapers that some Resolution, within the meaning of P roviso
attached to sub -Rule (2) of Rule 204 of the Rules, 1974, had already been passed by the
Provincial Assembly, and suspension of the petitioners was terminated. Thus a copy of
Notification was called from the respective office for perusal which was received and was taken on record. This Notification was also with the date 18th May 2018, and was with the contents:
"BALOCHISTAN PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION.
Dated Quetta, the 18th May, 2018.
No. PAB/Legis: I/(61)/2017. In continuation of this Secretariat Notification of even
number and date and on a Motion moved by Mir Sarfraz Ahmed Bugti, Hon'ble Minister for Home and Tribal Affairs, Balochistan, the Provincial Assembly of Balochistan in its sitting held on 18th May, 2018 resolved tha t suspension of the following Hon'ble
Members. Balochistan Provincial Assembly (under suspension) shall stand terminated
with effect from 20th May, 2018 with the condition that they will tender apology of their behavior before the House: --
1. Mr. Obaidulla h Jan Babat, M.P.A.
2. Sardar Ghulam Mustafa Khan Tareen, M.P.A.
3. Mr. Nasrullah Khan Zayray, M.P.A.
4. Agha Syed Liaqat Ali, M.P.A.
Sd/-Secretary
18.05.2018.
Copy forwarded for information to:
1. All the Hon'ble Members,
2. The Principal Secretary to Governor Balochistan, Quetta.
3. The Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Balochistan.
4. The Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Home and Tribal Affairs Department.
5. The Inspector General of Police, Balochistan, Quetta.
6. The Secretary to Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly.
7. The Director General, Public Relations Balochistan, Quetta."
11. In view a Notification had been issued subsequently in continuation of the pervious one,
thus holds the field. The petitioners were allowed to attend the sittings from 20th May 2018, but it is with a condition to tender apology for their behaviour before the House. This Notification is not in question in the instant petition, thus no findings recorded to this extent. The judgment relied by the le arned counsel though deals with the matters pertaining to Assembly, but the facts
of the case were not identical to that of the case in hand, thus not relevant, nor helpful to resolve the issue in hand.
12. Above all Article 69 of the Constitution act as a safeguard with reference to the acts done
by an Officer of Member of the Parliament within the provided scope, thus placed a bar to
question the validity of exercise of such powers before a court of law. Though this Article pertained to Parliament, but al so made applicable to the Provincial Assemblies by virtue of
Article 127 of the Constitution. Reproduction of Article 69 would be for better understanding of the issue:
"69. (1) The validity of any proceedings in Majlis -e-Shoora (Parliament) shall not be
called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure.
(2) No officer or member of Majlis -e-Shoora (Parliament) in whom powers are vested by
or under the Constitution for regulating procedure or the conduct of business, or for
maintaining order in Majlis -e-Shoora (Parliament), shall be subject to the jurisdiction of
any court in respect of the exercise by him of those powers.
(3) In this Article, Majlis -e-Shoora (Parliament) has the same meaning as in Article 66. "
In view of the explicit provis ion of the Constitution coupled with Rule 200 of the Rules,
1974 the case in hand if assessed the questioned act surely done by a Member of the Provincial Assembly while acting as Presiding Officer, thus the bar contained in sub- Article (2) of the
Article would have its application. The contents of the petition if believed as stated, the only
allegation which could have been made out was of irregularity of the procedure and nothing else, thus the validity of the said proceedings in view of sub- Article (1) o f the Article could not be
questioned in court of law. In addition it further restrained to challenge authority of the Presiding Officer, to whom the power was vested for regulating procedure, to conduct the business and to maintain order in Assembly. An i ndemnity available to the Presiding Officer by the mandate of
the Constitution. This Article further makes the instant petition not maintainable.
13. In view of the above discussion the petitioners have failed to make out a case which
shows any violation of the Constitution or of the Rules, 1974, or mala fides on part of the Presiding Officer resulted in passing of an order prejudicial to the petitioners and also resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, thus mandated exe rcise of the
powers available under Article 199 of the Constitution by this Court. The legal course rather the remedy provided by the Rules, 1974 have already been exercised resulted in issuance of the
subsequent Notification, whereby the order of suspensi on had already been terminated.
14. Before parting with the judgment it is to remind to the petitioners, the learned Members
of the Assembly, that the Presiding Officer acted within the authority placed by the Rules, 1974, thus undermining the authority by the acts on part of the petitioners neither could be appreciated,
nor could be allowed to continue. The Members of the Assembly have to follow the Rules and to observe the conduct as required by Rule 220 of the Rules, 1974, which was missing in the case i n
hand.
The petition is dismissed in limine for the stated reasons.
MH/50/BAL Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.