AJK Local Government Act, 1990

S. 15 — This section deals with the exercise of vote by member of the Local Council in no-confidence proceeding -votes have to be exercised in the prescribed manner. Ghulam Rasool v. Muhammad Siddique 1993 SCR 5 (C)
Section 15 — motion of no confidence — Chairman/Vice Chairman etc. — contention that a motion of no confidence can only be moved within a one month period following each 6 months period — held: the contention is inconsistent as section 15(2) & (3) clearly postulates that a motion of no confidence cannot be initiated within 6 months from the date of assumption of office — subsequent motions must have an interval of at least 6 months between them — – it does not limit the time frame for initiating motion of no confidence to a one month period immediately following 6 months intervals — it emphasizes that such motions become incompetent after 30 days beyond each 6 months interval — there is no strict deadline of one month period. Shahid Mehmood vs Azad Govt. & 14 others 2024 SCR 140(A)
—Sections 31,44(7) (4), 45, (e & f) 46— not empower the Govt. to issue such like notification through which the tax and fine can be imposed upon the heavy loaded vehicles—held: it was sole prerogative of District Councils, Union Councils and Municipal Committees/Corporations to enforce tax under AJ&K Local Councils (Imposition of Tax) Rules, 1981. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (G)
—Sections 31,44(7) (4), 45, (e & f) 46— do not give any power to the issuing authority to impose such like tax/fine— notification has not been published in the official gazette— the same shall be treated as non-existent, therefore, all the acts done on the strength of such notification have no value in the eye of law. Messers Friends & others v. Barrister Syed Iftikhar Ali Gillani & others 2017 SCR 534 (K)
S. 61 — This provision lays down that the business of a Local Council may be disposed of, apart from the Local Council itself, through its Committees/Sub-committees or by its Chairman, but the extent and the manner how the business shall be disposed of has to be “prescribed” — The term “Prescribed” has been defined in Section 2 to mean “Prescribed by rules.” According to Section 89 the powers to make rules to carry out the propose of the Act have been vested in the Government. No set of rules framed under Section 89 authorising the Mayor of Corporation to sanction a lease under the Act have been shown by the respondents. Since the power of granting lease under Section 61 is vested in the Municipal Committee, Mayor of a Corporation does not have the authority to grant a lease. Lease granted by the Mayor declared without jurisdiction. Residents of Mirpur v. Mayor Municipal Corporation Mirpur 1995 SCR 332 (G)
S. 61 r/w Regulations of 1985-Ordinance of 1974 does not invest the Municipal Committee with the powers to create new plots in open and other spaces in the area handed over to it where plots had been already marked — Restrictions have been placed to avoid the deviation from master plan. Administrator Municipal Committee and others v. Mumtaz Ali and others 2001 SCR 263 (D)
S. 61(4) (9) — Writ — Approval of allotment — Chairman Municipal Committee and Chairman Allotment Committee — Impleadment of — Held: Both the positions were held by the same person it can at the most be a mis-description and not a factual defect. Muhammad Ayub v. Tazarrat Hussain and 5 others 1998 SCR 58 (C)
S. 77 — Remedical measures — The Government has power to cancel the allotments which it deems fit and proper. Rehana Mahmood and 3 others v. Azad Govt. & others 1998 SCR 82 (C)
—enforcement—extends to all local bodies of AJ&K—in Mirpur town, operation of Local Govt. Act, is subject to MDA Ordinance, 1974—Held: Another statute influencing the powers of the MC is the Local Government Act, 1990. It’s noteworthy that this Act is not exclusively designed for Mirpur Town; rather, it encompasses all local bodies, including other Town Committees and Corporations within the State. Essentially, the provisions outlined in the Local Government Act, 1990, are applicable to Mirpur Town but are subject to the provisions of the amended Ordinance of 1974, which remains a specialized law dedicated to the development of the town. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (C)
—Municipal Corporation Mirpur has no powers of creating, developing, and cancellation of plots, within the areas transferred to it by MDA—- Held: MCM has significantly very limited powers as compared to the Mirpur Development Authority. The MDA holds ultimate authority in creating, developing, transferring and cancelling the plots. After the development of the particular area, the same is handed, over to the Municipal Corporation, this indicates that only areas already developed can be transferred to the Municipal Corporation (MC). The MC’s power pertains solely to existing developed plots and lacks the authority to create new plots in areas already developed, thus regardless of the proviso to section 61 of Local Government Act, 1990, the ordinance of 1974 does not empower the MC to create new plots in open and other places existing in the area it receives. Therefore, the creation of new plots by MC is impermissible, these spaces refer to those existing area of which a master plan has already been prepared and plots have been marked by the MDA or any other competent authority.—further held: the MCM, had no power to create or allot any such plot in the area which had been already developed and marked according to the master plan, issued by the MDA. Binyamin vs Parveen Akhtar & 17 others 2024 SCR 368 (G) Administrator Municipal Committee and others v. Mumtaz Ali and others 2001 SCR 263. Rel.