IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 
(Asad Ali Khan and others v. Province of 
Punjab through Secretary Government of 
 Punjab and others) 
AND 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.7 OF 2020 
(Daniyal Aziz v. Province of Punjab through 
Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 
 others) 
AND 
 
CMA NO.6762 OF 2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.20 OF 2014. 
(Administrator Municipal Corporation, Peshawar v. Taimur 
Hussain Amin and others) 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. M. Nawazish Ali Pirzada, ASC 
 
Syed Rifaqat H. Shah, AOR 
 
(in Const.P.48/19) 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Barrister 
Qasim 
Ali 
Chohan, 
Addl. A. G. Punjab. 
 
Ch. Abrar Ahmed, Director Law, 
Local Government, Punjab. 
 
(in Const.P.48/19) 
 
On Court’s Notice: 
Mr. Khalid Jawed Khan,  
 
Attorney General for Pakistan 
 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood, Addl. AGP. 
 
For ECP: 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC. 
 
Mr. Sajeel Sheryar Swati, ASC. 
 
Dr. Akhter Nazir, Secretary ECP. 
 
Mr. M. Arshad, D.G. Law ECP. 
 
Ms. Saima Tariq Janjua, Deputy 
Director, ECP. 
 
 
Mr. Zahid Sultan Khan Minhas, 
ASC. 
 
(in Const. P.07/2020) 
 
Date of Hearing:  
 
25.03.2021. 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 JUDGMENT  
 
 
GULZAR AHMED, CJ.- Elections under the 
Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) were 
held in phases in the year 2015-2016. Under Section 30(1) of 
the Act of 2013, the term of office of the local governments 
were provided to be five years commencing from the date on 
which it holds its first meeting. It is stated that first meeting 
under the Act of 2013 was held in January, 2017 and the 
local governments were to complete their term of office in 
January, 2022. On 30.04.2019, the Punjab Local Government 
Act, 2019 (the Act of 2019) was promulgated by the 
Provincial Assembly of Punjab. By Section 312 of the Act of 
2019, the Act of 2013 was repealed. Section 3(1) of the Act of 
2019 dissolved all local governments constituted or continued 
under the Act of 2013. Sub-Section (2) thereof provided that 
as soon as may be but not later than one year of the 
commencement of the Act of 2019, the Government shall 
constitute succeeding local governments in accordance with 
the provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 2019. Section 3(2) of 
the Act of 2019 was amended by the Punjab Local 
Government 
(Amendment) 
Act, 
2020, 
published 
on 
02.07.2020, by inserting the words “twenty one months” in 
place of “one year”.  
2. 
 
The petitioners have filed these constitution 
petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, inter alia, 
challenging the vires of Section 3 of the Act of 2019 on the 
ground that in terms of Articles 140A, 7, 17 and 32 of the 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Constitution, the Provincial Government had no power to 
dissolve the elected local governments, whose term of office 
has not expired.  
3. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioners in Constitution 
Petition No.48 of 2019 has contended that the local 
governments in Punjab were elected under the Act of 2013 
and they were to remain in office for five years but such 
period of the local governments’ was abruptly brought to an 
end by the promulgation of the Act of 2019. Section 3 thereof 
prematurely dissolved all local governments in the province of 
Punjab. He has contended that Section 3 of the Act of 2019 is 
ultra vires the Articles 140A, 7, 17 and 32 of the Constitution 
and relied upon the case of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif 
vs. President of Pakistan and others (PLD 1993 SC 473). He 
has further contended that the term “the State” is defined in 
Article 7 of the Constitution and has been given meaning of 
the Federal Government, Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) a 
Provincial Government, a Provincial Assembly and such local 
or other authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to 
impose any tax or cess. He has contended that the local 
government is a third tier of Government after Federal and 
Provincial Governments. This third tier of government was 
elected under the Act of 2013. The Provincial Assembly was 
not competent to dissolve this third tier of elected 
Government. In this regard learned counsel has relied upon 
the cases of Government of Sindh through Secretary Health 
Department and others vs. Dr. Nadeem Rizvi and other (2020 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SCMR 1) and Lahore Development Authority through its DG vs. 
Imrana Tiwana and others (2015 SCMR 1739). He has further 
contended that the act of the Provincial Government of 
dissolving local governments is demonstratively not fair as is 
apparent from the fact that Section 3(2) of the Act of 2019 
initially provided one year for constituting of succeeding local 
governments but it was not done, rather the period of one 
year was extended to twenty one months by amending sub-
Section (2) ibid but during this extended period also local 
governments were not constituted and even after expiry of 
twenty one months, there is no sign of constitution of local 
governments in Punjab. 
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner in Constitution 
Petition No.7 of 2020 adopted the arguments advanced by the 
learned counsel for the petitioners in Constitution Petition 
No.48 of 2019.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate 
General, Punjab (AAG) has supported the Act of 2019. He has 
contended that the Act of 2013 was a defective law containing 
separate multi-tiered local governments for urban and rural 
areas at District level and the Act of 2019 was promulgated 
by the Provincial Assembly of Punjab, in order to refine the 
local 
government 
structure 
and 
introduce 
the 
City 
Government Model, where directly elected Mayor will be 
responsible to deliver on all interrelated Urban City Model. 
Learned AAG has further contended that the Provincial 
Assembly of Punjab is a competent legislative body in terms of 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 140A of the Constitution in enacting the Act of 2019, 
repealing 
the 
Act 
of 
2013 
and 
dissolving 
the 
local 
governments. He in support of his submission has relied 
upon Imrana Tiwana’s case (supra). 
6. 
 
Learned Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), who 
has appeared on Court’s Notice, has argued that the very 
constitution petitions of the petitioners before this Court were 
not maintainable, for that, the petitioners had remedy of 
challenging the same under Article 199 of the Constitution 
before the High Court and it is not shown as to why such 
remedy in the first instance was not availed by the 
petitioners. He has referred to Article 243U of the Indian 
Constitution and contended that had similar Article been 
provided in our Constitution, Section 3 of the Act of 2019 
would have been adjudged ultra vires the Constitution. He 
has contended that as provision similar to the Indian 
Constitution is not available in our Constitution, thus, 
Section 3 of the Act of 2019 could not be adjudged ultra vires. 
He has further contended that the Act of 2019 is made by the 
competent legislation, i.e. the Provincial Assembly of Punjab, 
which could not be struck down on the ground of 
unreasonableness. He has contended that even if Section 3 of 
the Act of 2019 is struck down, the only recourse available is 
that of holding of fresh elections of local governments in 
Punjab. In support of his submissions the learned AGP has 
relied upon the case of Federation of Pakistan and others vs. 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (PLD 1989 
Supreme Court 166).  
7. 
 
As the learned AGP has raised the question of 
maintainability of the instant constitution petitions under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution, we would decide such issue 
in the first place. For reference, Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution is as follows: - 
“184. Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court.- 
(1) … … …  
 
(2) … … … 
 
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 
199, the Supreme Court shall, if it considers that 
a question of public importance with reference to 
the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights 
conferred by Chapter I of Part II is involved, have 
the power to make an order of the nature 
mentioned in the said Article.” 
8. 
 
The Question of maintainability of the constitution 
petition before this Court under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution has elaborately been dealt with by a 11-Member 
Bench of this Court in Miss Benazir Bhutto’s case (supra). In 
this reported case, the amendment made in the Political 
Parties Act 1962 being violative of Articles 17 and 25 of the 
Constitution besides, vires of the Freedom of Association 
Order, 1978 and also the constitutionality of Article 270A of 
the Constitution, were challenged. This Court observed as 
follows:-  
“Therefore, there can be no doubt that when the 
impugned legislation by reference to its provisions 
is ex facie violative of[ Fundamental Rights of an 
individual or political parties or associations or 
unions, proceedings lie for the enforcement of 
those rights irrespective of the fact whether any 
prejudicial order has been passed by the Executive 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
under the law as the Constitution treats the 
Fundamental Rights as superior to ordinary 
legislation and for that reason sub-Articles (1) and 
(2) of Article 8 of the Constitution have been 
enacted which clearly reflect the object and 
intention of the framers of the Constitution, that 
is, to keep the Fundamental Rights at a high 
pedestal and to save their enjoyment from 
legislative infractions. Sub-Article (1) of Article 8 
lays down that any law in so far as it is 
inconsistent with the rights conferred by this 
Chapter" 
shall, 
to 
the 
extent 
of 
such 
inconsistency, be void. This could not have been 
without a purpose but to preserve and protect the 
Fundamental Rights. Sub-Article (2) of Article 8 
places a restriction on the Legislature not to make 
law which take away or abridges the rights so 
conferred, and any law made in contravention of 
this 
clause 
shall 
to 
the 
extent 
of 
such 
contravention, be void. Article 199(1)(c) authorises 
the High Court to enforce the Fundamental Rights 
of an aggrieved person and to declare that so 
much of the law which is inconsistent with the 
Fundamental Rights shall be void. Therefore, there 
is the power to declare the law to be void and the 
power to enforce the Fundamental Rights which 
are violated by the law itself. Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to 
enforce 
the 
Fundamental 
Rights 
where 
the 
question of public importance arises in relation 
thereto. And if looked at from this angle it is 
hardly of any importance whether the Executive 
has passed a prejudicial order or not when the 
infraction of the Fundamental Rights takes place 
by the operation of the law itself. In this context 
what would be relevant would be the language of 
the provisions of the impugned Act itself. It will 
then not be a question of the Court merely 
granting a declaration as to the validity or 
invalidity of law in the abstract. Reference in this 
connection may be made to K.K. Kochunni v. State 
of Madras, A I R 1959 S C 725,” 
 
9. 
 
In the case in hand also, the petitioners have 
raised the question of very constitutionality of Section 3 of the 
Act of 2019, being violative of Articles 17, 140A, 7 and 32 of 
the Constitution. Combined reading of these Articles shows 
that they have weaved the very fabric of the local government 
system and Article 17 ibid has provided the bedrock on which 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the local government system stands or rests. Infraction of 
Article 17 ibid fragments and tears apart the whole local 
government system and the local governments established by 
it. Thus, the very relevance of Article 17 of the Constitution, 
which guarantees to the citizen fundamental right, inter alia, 
to form and be a member of a political party, surely raises the 
question of 
public importance with reference to the 
enforcement of the fundamental rights. Thus, the petitions 
before this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution will 
be maintainable. 
10. 
 
The petitioners in Constitution Petition No.48 of 
the 2019 were all elected and chosen representatives of the 
people of Punjab in their respective local governments under 
the Act of 2013 and their term of office was for the period of 
five years. Their term of office was abruptly brought to an end 
by promulgation of the Act of 2019, in that, Section 3 thereof 
has dissolved all local governments in the province of Punjab 
without allowing them to run their period provided in law. 
The petitioner in Constitution Petition No.7 of 2020 is also a 
public spirited person and voter for electing local government 
in the province of Punjab and striving for establishment of 
rule of law and good governance in the Country.  
11. 
 
The grievance of the petitioners is that the elected 
local governments, which were elected under the Act of 2013, 
could not have been dissolved before the expiry of their term 
of five years as provided by law by making provision of 
Section 3 in the Act of 2019. It was asserted before this Court 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
that such manner of dissolution of local governments is not 
permissible under the mandate of the Constitution, more 
particularly, the provisions of Articles 17, 7, 32 and 140A of 
the Constitution. Article 140A of the Constitution is as 
follows: - 
“140A. Local Government. Each Province shall, 
by law, establish a local government system and 
devolve political, administrative and financial 
responsibility 
and 
authority 
to 
the 
elected 
representatives of the local governments. 
(2) Elections to the local governments shall be held 
by the Election Commission of Pakistan.” 
 
12. 
 
The reading of the above provision of the 
Constitution demonstratively envisages the establishment of 
local government system by law to be made by the provinces. 
It also require devolving of political, administrative and 
financial 
responsibility 
and 
authority 
to 
the 
elected 
representatives of the local governments. Under this very 
provision of the Constitution, the province of Punjab has 
promulgated the Act of 2013 for the establishment of a local 
government system in province of Punjab and devolving of 
political, administrative and financial responsibility and 
authority 
to 
the 
elected 
representatives 
of 
the 
local 
governments. Election Commission of Pakistan is mandated 
to hold elections of local governments. Under the Act of 2013, 
elections of the local governments were held in the province of 
Punjab in phases in the years -2015-2016, as a result of 
which local governments in the province of Punjab were 
elected and by Section 30 of the Act of 2013, a local 
government was to remain in office for a period of five years 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
10
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
from the date it holds its first meeting. There is no dispute 
that the first meeting of the local governments in Punjab was 
held in January, 2017 and thus, the local governments were 
to remain in office until January, 2022. Section 3 of the Act of 
2019 is as follows: - 
“3. Dissolution of existing local governments.–
 (1) All local governments constituted or continued 
under the Punjab Local Government Act, 2013 
(Act XVIII of 2013) are hereby dissolved. 
(2)        As soon as may be but not later than one 
year of the commencement of this Act, the 
Government shall constitute succeeding local 
governments in accordance with the provisions of 
section 15 of this Act.” 
 
 
Sub-Section (2) ibid provided that as soon as may be 
but not later than ‘one year’ of the commencement of the Act 
of 2019, the Government shall constitute succeeding local 
governments in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 
of the Act of 2019. The said Sub-Section was amended by the 
Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2020, by 
inserting the words “twenty one months” in place of “one 
year”. It is not necessary for us to go into the implication of 
Section 15 of the Act of 2019, for it deals with the 
constitution of the local governments.  
13. 
 
There is no dispute that the local government’s 
elections, held under the Act of 2013 in the years 2015-2016, 
were on political party basis. Thus, the question arises 
whether local governments elected under the Act of 2013 
could at all be dissolved and whether the provision of Section 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 of the Act of 2019, which has dissolved the local 
governments, is at all ultra vires the Constitution. 
14. 
 
As noted above, Article 140A of the Constitution 
has mandated on each province by law to establish local 
government system. This is a mandatory provision, which 
every province has to implement. In Article 7 of the 
Constitution, the term ‘State’ has been defined as Federal 
Government, 
Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) 
a 
Provincial 
Government, a Provincial Assembly and such local or other 
authorities in Pakistan as are by law empowered to impose 
any tax or cess. By this very definition of the term State, the 
local government has been given status of a State and 
apparently, it is a third tier of government in the Federation of 
Pakistan. Article 17 of the Constitution provides for Freedom 
of Association and gives rights to every citizen to form 
associations, unions, or form or be a member of a political 
party. Further, Article 32 of the Constitution is part of a 
Principles of Policy of the State and it provides that the State 
shall encourage local government institutions composed of 
elected representatives of the area concerned and in such 
institutions, special representation will be given to peasants, 
workers and women, in the establishment of the local 
government system by law. Thus, Article 140A read with 
Articles 7, 17 and 32 are complementary to each other and 
work as a syntheses for the establishment and functioning of 
the local governments.  
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
12
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15. 
 
Article 32 of the Constitution, as part of Principles 
of Policy, although is not enforceable by Court nor it can be 
made basis alone for adjudging any law to be void but in 
making law, the State is required to be guided by the 
directives of the Principles of Policy and has to ensure that 
these directives of Principles of Policy are duly reflected in 
making of law, for these Principles of Policy are the 
pronounced objectives of the State for the socio-economic 
development of the citizens for the ultimate establishment of 
an egalitarian society. These directives Principles of Policy of 
the State have a place in overall working of the State, and all 
acts of the State organs and the functionaries of the State 
have to be in consonance with these directives of the 
Principles of Policy. No inconsistency in this regard can be 
made by the State or State Organs in performance of its 
functions.  
16. 
 
Article 17 enjoins upon the citizens right to form 
associations, unions, or form or be a member of a political 
party. This is a fundamental right given to the citizen by the 
Constitution. The right to form or be a member of a political 
party, nurtures in itself principles of democracy and liberties, 
which inheres in itself establishment of a popular government 
at the level of the State. Thus, the right to form or be a 
member of a political party inherently implies in it right to 
form or be a member of a political party and to contest 
elections and in succeeding such elections, to hold elected 
office for a duration provided by law. Therefore, the local 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
13
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
government system established under Article 140A of the 
Constitution through Provincial Legislation, when translates 
into an elected local government for a specified period of time 
by law, cannot be dissolved before the period of its expiry, as 
such action will directly come in conflict with Article 17 of the 
Constitution read with Articles 140A, 7 and 32 of the 
Constitution.   
17. 
 
There is no cavil to the proposition that Provincial 
Legislation is competent to make law and the Act of 2019 has 
been made by competent legislation. The difficulty is only 
with regard to Section 3 of the Act of 2019, where it brings 
about total dissolution of the local governments in Punjab 
and all elected representatives are sent home packing without 
allowing them to complete their term of office, which 
otherwise was allowed to them under the Act of 2013.  
18. 
 
As noted above, the trampling of elected local 
governments, which has come with its mandate and with 
promise to the people of their constituencies, cannot be 
dissolved by Section 3 of the Act of 2019, for it is in direct 
conflict with Articles 17 read with Articles 140A, 7 and 32 of 
the Constitution. The dissolution of the local government has 
also disenfranchised the people, who have voted for their 
representatives in the local governments.          
19. 
 
So far the Act of 2013 is concerned, though it 
provides for law for removal of elected representatives from 
the office of local government and reasons and procedure for 
it is also provided but the provision for very dissolution of the 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
14
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
local government as contained in Section 126 was omitted by 
the Punjab Local Government (Amendment) Act, 2017. So the 
power of very dissolving the local governments was not 
possessed by the Province in the Act of 2013. Section 233 of 
the Act of 2019 makes provision for suspension or dissolution 
of a local government and it provides for giving of reasons by 
the government, and manner and procedure to be adopted for 
this purpose. This very Section itself admits and recognizes 
that the local governments cannot be suspended or dissolved 
on mere desire of the Province.  
 
20. 
 
Article 137 of the Constitution provides that 
subject to the Constitution, the Executive Authority of the 
Province shall extend to the matters with respect to which the 
Provincial Assembly has power to make laws. At the same 
time, Article 8 of the Constitution, contained in Chapter 1 of 
Part II thereof, under the heading of Fundamental Rights, 
provides that any law, custom or usage having the force of 
law, in so far as it is inconsistent with the rights conferred by 
the said Chapter, shall to the extent of such inconsistency be 
void and the State shall not make any law, which takes away 
or abridges the rights so conferred, and any law made in 
contravention of the said clause to the extent of such 
contravention be void.  
21. 
 
In Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif’s case (supra) 
this Court while dealing with Article 17 of the Constitution, 
observed as follows: - 
“Accordingly, the basic right “to form or be a 
member of a political party” conferred by Article 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
15
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17(2) comprises the right of that political party not 
only to form' a political party, contest elections 
under its banner but also, after successfully 
contesting the elections, the right to form the 
Government if its members, elected to that body, 
are in possession of the requisite majority. The 
Government of the political party so formed must 
implement the programme of the political party 
which the electorate has mandated it to carry into 
effect. Any unlawful order which results in 
frustrating this activity, by removing it from office 
before the completion of its normal tenure would, 
therefore, constitute an infringement of this 
Fundamental Right. 
 
In this connection, the interpretation of the word 
“operating” in Article 17(2) given by my learned 
brother Shafiur Rahman, J. further clarifies this 
aspect of the matter. He has rightly pointed out 
that the term “operating” includes both healthy 
and unhealthy operation of a political party. While 
Article 17 contains limitations and checks against 
unhealthy operation of the political party; no 
provision exists therein in relation to its healthy 
operation. However, the mere omission to make 
any specific provision in regard to this aspect does 
not imply that Fundamental Right 17 does not 
also comprise this aspect of the matter. Indeed, a 
positive right implies, as part of the same right, a 
negative right and vice a verse (see the views of 
Jeckson, J. for the majority and Murphy, J. 
concurring in West Virginia State Board of 
Education v. Barnette (1942) 319 U.S. 624. Hence, 
if the lawful functioning of a Government of 
political party is frustrated (by its dismissal) by an 
unlawful order, such an order is an impediment in 
the healthy functioning of the political party and 
would, therefore, constitute an infringement of the 
fundamental right conferred by Article 17(2).” 
 
22. 
 
Further, in Imrana Tiwana’s case (supra), this 
Court while dealing with Articles 137 and 140A of the 
Constitution observed as follows:  
“36. Articles 137 and 140A have to be read in 
harmony. Neither overrides the other. These 
provisions provide a scheme for a representative 
government and participatory democracy in the 
country. These provide a scheme to establish Local 
Government and articulate a framework within 
which the Provincial Government must function. 
The authority conferred on the Province and the 
responsibilities devolved on the Local Government 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
16
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
form part of a common scheme. These are not to 
be used as trumps. One cannot cancel the other. 
These are co-equal norms. They weave the 
constitutional fabric.” 
23. 
 
Admittedly, the local governments’ offices in 
Punjab were political Governments and had fundamental 
right as provided in the Constitution to run for their duration 
as provided by law. As held in Imrana Tiwana’s case (supra), 
the Province has no power to cancel local government created 
under Article 140A of the Constitution. The local governments 
as per law were entitled to function for the duration of five 
(05) years as provided in the Act of 2013 and implement the 
schemes, which they have promised to the voters from their 
constituencies. Such could not have been eroded by making 
provision of Section 3 of the Act of 2019, as it not only 
tramples the elected local governments but also tramples 
upon the fundamental rights of the citizenry, who have voted 
to elect the local governments. This could only be considered 
as an act for which the provision in Clauses (1) and (2) of 
Article 8, in Chapter 1 of Part II, of the Constitution, has been 
made.  
24. 
 
For what has been stated above, the submissions 
made by the learned AAG, does not hold ground. So far the 
submission of the learned AGP with reference to Indian 
Constitution is concerned, the same is not relevant and is 
also distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the 
present case. Further, the submission of the learned AGP on 
the basis of judgment in Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan’s 
case (supra), we note that in the said judgment, the very 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
17
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
action of the President under Article 58(2)(b) of the 
Constitution was found to have not been exercised in 
accordance with law but as the elections had been called and 
date for the same had been announced, the Court did not 
consider it fit to restore the Assembly. However, in the instant 
case neither the elections have been called nor the date of 
elections has been announced, therefore, the ratio of the said 
case is not applicable to the instant case.     
25. 
 
For what has been discussed above, Section 3 of 
the Act of 2019 is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution. 
Consequently, the Local Governments as were existing in the 
Province of Punjab prior to promulgation of the said section 
stands restored and shall complete their term in accordance 
with law. 
26. 
 
The above are the reasons of our short order of 
even date, which reads as under: - 
“We have heard the learned ASC for the 
petitioners, 
the 
learned 
Additional 
Advocate 
General, Punjab so also the learned Attorney 
General for Pakistan on Court’s notice and have 
also gone through the record of the case.  
 
2. 
For reasons to be recorded separately, 
Constitution Petition No.48 of 2019 is allowed and 
Section 3 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 
2019 is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution 
and the Local Governments as were existing in the 
Province of Punjab prior to promulgation of the 
said section stands restored and it shall complete 
its term in accordance with law.    
 
3. 
As Constitution Petition No.7 of 2020 is also 
for the same relief as in the Constitution Petition 
No.48 of 2019, the same is also disposed of in 
terms as noted in para-2 above.  
 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO.48 OF 2019 etc. 
18
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C.M.A.No.6762 of 2020 
 
4. 
In view of the disposal of Constitution 
Petitions No.48 of 2019 and 7 of 2020, this 
application 
has 
become 
infructuous 
and 
is 
disposed of.”  
   
     Chief Justice 
 
 
  Judge  
 
 
    Judge 
ISLAMABAD.  
25.03.2021. 
Rabbani/* 
‘Approved For Reporting’