Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes-Question whether particular provision in statute directory or mandatory-Court to examine scope and purpose of statute to ascertain intention of Legislature. The question whether a particular statutory provision is mandatory or directory is, in many a case, extremely difficult to determine. The phraseology of the provision is not always a sure index, and there is no universal rule to aid in determin ing this question. The universally accepted view, however, is that it is duty of the Court to apply the recognised rules of interpretation of statutes and to carefully examine the scope and purpose of the statute and thereby to ascertain the real intention of the law-maker in enacting a particular provision. Some jurists and superior Courts have also suggested guidelines and laid down tests, but these are again intended for the same purpose, namely, to discover the legislative intent behind a particular provision. In re Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury v. Province of East Pakistan P L D 1959 Dacca 382 ; Abul Hossain v. The State P L D 1960 Dacca 438 ; M. Noman v. Dacca Improvement Trust P L D 1964 Dacca 671 ; 18 D L R 736 and Mentreal Street Railway Co. v. Nermandin (1917) A C 170 ref. Per S. D. Ahmed, J.- As a general rule, a statute which regulates the manner in which public officials shall exercise the power vested in them, will be construed as directory rather than mandatory . . . . or if nothing is stated regarding the consequences or effect of non-compliance, the indication is all the stronger that it should not be considered mandatory. Caldow v. Pixell (1877) 2 C P D 562 ; Phillips v. Golf 17 Q B D 805 ; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., p. 364 ; 1926 A C 619 ; 1939 A C 277 and Crawford on the 'Construction of Statutes', p. 529 ref. (b) East Pakistan Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence) Rules, 1963, r. 2(3)-Provision mandatory-Non-compliance with provision of sub-rule as to time limit vitiates no-confidence resolution passed in special meeting convened by Controlling Authority beyond prescribed time limit-[S. D. Ahmed, J. contra].-[Samiruddin Molla v. Sub-Divisional Officer and Controlling Authority,…