| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3234 1970 SLD 3234 = 1970 PLD 730 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Writ Petition No. 407 of 1966, decided on 17th April 1970.
Presented By: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Muhammad Hayat Junejo, JJ
Tahir Hussa:n for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. S. M. Raza for
Respondent No. 3. Addl. Advocate-General for
Respondent No. 4.
Writ Petition No. 407 of 1966, decided on 17th April 1970.
Presented By: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Muhammad Hayat Junejo, JJ
Tahir Hussa:n for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. S. M. Raza for
Respondent No. 3. Addl. Advocate-General for
Respondent No. 4.
KAMIL NOOK KHAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNION COMMITTEE No. 60, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS-----Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Basic Democracies Order (P. O. 18 of 1959,) Art. 3(8) & (10) read with West 'Pakistan Government Notification No. BDI/25-9(MC/60) dated 16-3-1966 - Word "Collector" in Art. 3(8)-Does not necessarily mean Chief Officer incharge of Revenue Administration of District-Word includes any other officer specifically appointed by Government to perform functions of Collector under Basic Democracies Order, 1959-Officer (Chair man, Municipal Committee) notified by Government to perform all functions of Collector as Controlling Authority of Union Committees-Can exercise all powers of Collector under Basic Democracies Order, 1959 and rules made thereunder-Word "include" appearing in statutes-Makes definition enumerative and not exhaustive-Interpretation of statutes. It was contended that the Chairman, Municipal Committee, who had been notified by the Government to perform all functions of Collector as Controlling Authority of the Union Committees for the purposes of Article 3(8) & (10) of the Basic Democracies Order, 1958, could not act as Controlling Autho rity for the purposes of rule 3(1), West Pakistan Basic Democracies (Vote of No-Confidence against Chairman) Rules, 1963. It was also argued that the notification in question laving been issued by virtue of powers granted to Government under definition clause (Article 3(8), Basic Democracies Order, 1959), was bad in law because the said Article was meant for defining words used in the order and not for the purpose of conferment of powers. Held: There is no substance in this argument for the simple reason that it is not for the Courts to corrector amend the definition clause. On the contrary effect must be given to the clear and unambiguous intention of the Legislature that the word "Collector" does not necessarily mean the Chief Officer incharge of the Revenue Administration of the District, but would also include any of the officers appointed by the Govern ment to perform all or any of the functions of a Collector under the Order. It is well settled that the word "include" is used in an inter pretation clause in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases…