Notice in Gujranwala Cantt Board case

LAHORE

The Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the authorities concerned on a petition challenging procedure of No-Confidence motion against vice-president of Cantonment Board of Gujranwala.

Advocate Zafarullah Khan had filed the petition through his counsel Advocate Mobeen Qazi and submitted that he contested and won the election on the seat of member of the Cantonment Board Gujranwala, from Ward No.2 in the Cantonments Local Government Elections 2015, held on April 25, 2015. Later on, he was got elected as the Vice-President of the Cantonment Board, Gujranwala, for a period of four years. He said after winning the election for the said public office with overwhelming majority of nine out of 12 votes, he assumed the charge of the office of vice-president.

He argued that the ECP issued the notifications of the returned candidates on the “general seats” as well as on the “special interest seats”, also under the above-mentioned law and the rules.

According to Cantonment Ordinance, 2002, as well as the old Law of Cantonment Act, 1924, almost all the financial, executive and administrative powers of the Cantonment Boards vest with the president of the board, who is a non–elected serving army officer normally the Officer Commanding the station. Whereas, the Vice-President of a Cantonment Board, who is an elected member of the Board, has no independent authority or power, except to exercise the powers of the President of the Board in his absence or the powers delegated by the president, he submitted.

He submitted that in the petitioner’s case, he could not get any opportunity to exercise any financial, executive, or administrative power or authority, as neither the president of the Board ever absented nor otherwise delegated any powers to the petitioner being a VP.

Hence, he only acted as an ordinary member having a limited role of exercising right to vote on the resolutions moved during the Board’s meeting.

He said the president of the cantonment board, who happened to be the serving Brigadier  started pressurising him to act as a rubber stamp for him and support his actions through getting approval of resolutions of the Board.

The petitioner said that in these backdrop facts, the president orchestrated a move of so-called no confidence motion.

Through pressurising the members, he procured an application on September 5, 2016 from seven elected members and issued notice to the petitioner at home. He said he had public mandate and no such motion could be initiated against him.

He said he also approached the local civil court which decided in his favour but the president refused to comply with the order of the court.

He prayed to the court to set aside the impugned proceedings of no-confidence motion while proceeding under the old Law of Cantonment Act, 1924, may graciously also be set aside. He requested the court to restrain respondents from removing the petitioner as the Vice-President of the CBG, in any manner whatsoever, on the basis of the impugned proceedings.

He prayed to the court to restrain president of the CBG from interfering in the smooth exercise of power and authority by the petitioner as the elected Vice-President of the Cantonment Board Gujranwala.