Chapter – XXXVI) Subordinate legislation #
202. Rules. #
(1) The Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Part-I of Sixth Schedule.
(3) The rules made under sub-section (1) shall meet the following considerations:
(a) consistency with democratic decentralization and subsidiarity;
(b) enhancement of welfare of the people;
(c) fairness and clarity; and
(d) natural justice and due process of law.
| NOTES: | ||||
| PARI MATERIA PROVISIONS | ||||
| PLGA 2013 | PLGA 2019 | PLGO 2021 | PLGA 2022 (Act No. XIII of 2022) | PLGA 2022 (Act No. XXXIII of 2022) |
| s. | s. | s. | s. | s. |
| 144 | 310 | 213 | 209 | 202 |
203. Bye-laws. #
(1) A local government may, in its ambit of responsibilities, make bye-laws to carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the fore-going power, such bye-laws may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Part-II of the Sixth Schedule.
(3) A local government, if required so by the Government shall, within ninety days of such instruction, by notification in the official Gazette, make bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules and this Act.
(4) Where a local government fails to meet the requirements of subsection (2), the Secretary with the approval of the Minister in charge of the Department may notify bye-laws for that local government which shall be valid as if framed by that local government.
| NOTES: | ||||
| PARI MATERIA PROVISIONS | ||||
| PLGA 2013 | PLGA 2019 | PLGO 2021 | PLGA 2022 (Act No. XIII of 2022) | PLGA 2022 (Act No. XXXIII of 2022) |
| s. | s. | s. | s. | s. |
| 145 | 310 | 214 | 210 | 203 |
Comments
It is important to state that the rule-making power vests with the Provincial Government under various provisions of the Act on specific matters, whereas section 202 confers generic power to make rules for the purpose of Act. Section 203 of the Act requires the local governments to make bye-laws to regulate their business. It is significant to note that the Act being a “Parent Statute” is a creation of the Provincial Assembly being higher level of legislature, whereas the Rules also called as “Subordinate Legislature” are made by the Government i.e. Provincial Cabinet in exercise of power delegated by the Provincial Assembly through the Act. The Bye-laws are the next level of Subordinate legislation after the Rules and they are subservient to the Act and the Rules. Hence, any bye-law contrary to the Act and the Rules is treated as ultra vires. Similarly, any rule inconsistent with the Act has no legal application. Since the local governments are bound to implement the provisions of the Act while in performance of their functions and exercise of powers, they are under legal obligation to function within the framework of the Province and adhere to all applicable federal and provincial laws. The Act commands the local government to perform certain devolved function originally belonging to the Government and primary legislation to regulate performance of such functions already existed. On the other hand, despite devolution of the said functions it is practically not possible to provide exhaustive provisions under the Act to deal with the manner of their performance, therefore, relevant Provincial laws have been made applicable for strict adherence. It is a recognized principle of law that the rule made in pursuance of delegated authority must be consistent with the statute, under which they came to be made. The authority is given to the end that the provisions of the statute may be better carried into effect, and not with the view of neutralizing or contradicting those provisions (Rajam Chetti v. Seshayya ILR 18 Mad. 236, 245; Raghanallu Naidu v. Corporation of Madras AIR 1930 Mad.648). Rules made under the rule making power given by an Act should not be repugnant to the Act and in case of conflict between the Act and the rules, the Act should prevail (Central Karantaka Motor services Ltd v. State of Mysore AIR Mys 7; see PLD 1967 Kar. 618). Rules cannot go beyond the scope of the Act nor can they by themselves enlarge the scope of statutory provisions and the Rule making authority also cannot clothe itself which statute itself does not provide (PLD 1964 SC 451). Rules have to conform to and be subordinate to statute and cannot overreach or override the statute (1982 SCMR 522; 1997 MLD 2155(b); 1986 CLC 2892; 1985 SCMR 365; PLD 1957 Lah.228). Therefore, statutory rules cannot take away or abridge a power conferred by the relevant statute and they cannot abolish the Act permitted (1985 SCMR 386).
Statutory rules and byelaws differ in this respect. Byelaws are framed by corporation for carrying out their purposes. Though a byelaw must not be repugnant to the statute or the general law, byelaws and rules made under a rule-making power conferred by a statute do not stand at the same footing as rules are part and parcel of the statute. Parliament or Government instead of incorporating them into statute itself ordinarily authorizes Government to carry out details laid down by the Legislatures by framing rules under the statute and once the rules are framed, they are incorporated in the statute itself, and become part of the statute.
In a judgment reported as PLD 2018 Lahore 858 in a case titled “Munawar Javed Khudai and another v. Election Tribunal Multan and others”, the Hon’ble Lahore High Court observed that:
13. It is by now settled law that the rules and regulations are the progeny or offspring of a statute and were to be strictly interpreted in conformity with the provisions of the statute whereunder same were framed. Rules framed under a statute were to remain within the precincts of the statute itself and could not transgress the limits and parameters of the parent statute itself. All efforts were to be made to interpret the rules so as to bring them in conformity and without injuring the intent and spirit of the statute, however where it was not possible then the rules in as much as they injured the very intent and spirit of the statute must yield to the statute. Reliance is placed on National Electric Power Regulatory Authority v. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (2016 SCMR 550).
14. It is also settled law that the operation of a statute or any statutory provision is not dependent upon framing of the Rules. However, in some cases, the absence of Rules may affect the enforceability or operatability of the statute. The framing of Rules would be generally relevant for determining as to whether the power under the statute has been exercised properly or not, but the existence of Rules could neither save nor destroy the constitutional validity of the Statute.”
