' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner is a disabled and unmarried lady as she is deaf and dumb by birth as is evident from Annexure-A attached with the Constitutional Petition No,2968 of 1990. Her father died on 9-8-1975 as is evident from Annexure-B attached with Writ Petition No,2968 of 1990. The petitioner secured all her resources from the inheritance and other savings with little subsidies that she was able to raise from nearest relative to built a house, which is in her occupation. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 issued notice to the petitioner under section 68 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 for proposed assessment dated 6-3-1989. The petitioner submitted reply wherein the petitioner sought exemption from tax vide reply dated 18-5- 1989. Respondent No,3 subsequently issued notice to the petitioner under section 90 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. The petitioner submitted an application under section 100 of the Cantonment Act before respondent on 14-9-1989 seeking exemption from the house tax which was received in the office of the respondents on 14-9-1989. The respondents rejected the same. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,2968 of 1990 with the following prayers:-- "In view of the foregoing facts and grounds it is most respectfully prayed that a writ be issued to the respondents' restraining them from defeating the provisions of Statute and insisting on tax demand by way of impugned order which is not sustainable in law and be declared to be without lawful authority.
' Costs of the petition with any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may also be awarded."
' The aforesaid Constitutional petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30-5-1990 in the following terms:-- "The learned counsel for respondent No,3 states that the respondent is willing to examine the matter afresh to consider the request of the petitioner for exemption from payment of the property tax. In this view of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition at this stage and reserve his right to file a fresh petition if need so arise."
' The respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 27-6-2001 and 29-7-2001. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No,18586 of 2001 with the following prayers:-- "In view of the foregoing facts and legal grounds it is most respectfully prayed that a writ be issued to the respondents restraining them from resorting to coercive measures and defeating the provision of the statute and drawing irrational distinction and classification and insisting on tax demand by way of impugned orders and the same being unsustainable in law be declared to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction."
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that it is the duty and obligation of the Central Government to exempt any person or any class in view of sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonments Act 1924. The competent authority has issued the instructions vide notification dated 22-12-1979 wherein certain persons/classes have been awarded exemption. He further submits that mere reading the instructions issued by the respondent vide notification dated 22-12-1979 clearly shows that benefits were given to the persons who are well off and wives/widows of the bureaucrats. He further urges that the petitioner does not press the Constitutional petition on the undertaking of the counsel of respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the earlier round of litigation and the Constitutional Petition No,2968 of 1990 was disposed of which has binding effect between respondents Nos.2 and 3 and the petitioner. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 have not considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30-5-1990. He further submits that it is duty and obligation of respondents Nos.2 and 3 to refer the case of the petitioner for exemption under sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonments Act 1924 in terms of order dated 30-5-1990 therefore, the petitioner is penalized by the inaction of the respondents. He further urges that disabled persons is in itself is a class, which could be exempted, which have need support for the survival of this class. He further urges that 'respondents have taken preliminary objection that Constitutional petition is not maintainable, has no force in view of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon Mst. Razia Begum v. Cantonment Board Clifton 2000 YLR 2114 and Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Haji Muhammad Din 1976 SCM R 395.
3. The learned legal advisor of respondents Nos.2 and 3 submits that he has given undertaking to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for exemption from payment of the property tax and the case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the respondent/Board and rejected the same. He further submits .That he has no authority whatsoever, under the law to give any undertaking on behalf of respondent No,
1. He further submits that Constitutional petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has more than one alternative remedies in the shape of appeal and revision as is evident from sections 84 and 277 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. In support of his 'contention, he relied upon Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Forest Department, Punjab Lahore v.
Ghulam Nabi and 3 others PLD 2001 SC 415. He further submits that respondents Nos.2 and 3 have no power under the law to frame any policy to exempt tax in question qua the disabled person in view of sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The power vests with the Central Government, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel of the petitioner fails to point out any violation of any law by respondents Nos.2 and 3, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable. He further submits that tax amounting to Rs,86,000 is outstanding against the petitioner till date.
4. Mr. Tariq Shamim Standing Counsel submits that section 100 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 clearly reveals that Central Government has power to exempt tax in-question with regard to a person on account of poverty but the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters prescribed by the legislature in its wisdom in view of section 100. He further submits that petitioner is not totally disabled, therefore, petitioner has no locus standi to file this Constitutional petition. He further, submits that petitioner has to avail the alternative remedies prescribed under the statute before filing the Constitutional petition. He further submits that petitioner has to file application before the Central Government in terms of sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, therefore, Constitutional petition is pre-mature at this stage.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted fact that earlier Constitutional petition of the petitioner was disposed of on the undertaking of legal advisor of respondents Nos.2 and 3, therefore, undertaking of legal advisor of respondents Nos.2 and 3 is not binding upon respondent No,
1. The learned counsel of respondents Nos.2 and 3 has taken categorical stand during the arguments that respondents Nos.2 and 3 have considered the case of the petitioner in terms of order dated 30-5-1990 and rejected the same. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents Nos.2 and 3 did not mention a single word that case of the petitioner was considered by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in terms of order dated 30-5-1990. It is settled principle of law that this Court has only, jurisdiction to interpret the law and has no jurisdiction to take the role of the legislature or executive as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49 ' Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 1993 SC 473.
' The petitioner has more than one alternative remedies either to approach the Central Government in terms of sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 or to approach the Wafaqi Mohtasib Ala as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hafiz Muhammad Arif Dar v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1989 SC 109. The petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the vires of the order of the respondents in appeal and revision, therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments by interpreting provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924:-- ' State Bank of Pakistan v. The Director Military Lands and Cantonments Rawalpindi and others PLD 1990 SC 827.
' Chief Administrative Auqaf Government of Punjab v. Cantonment Board, Bahawalpur and others 2001 M LD 1660.
' It is also settled principle of law that Constitutional petition is not maintainable against the demand notice as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Mst. Shagufta Begum's case PLD 1989 SC 360. Mere reading the prayer clause it brings the case of the petitioner in the area that the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition in the representative capacity without fulfilling the mandatory provisions of Order I, rule 8, C.P.C. Therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable in view -of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Anjuman Araian, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and 5 others PLD 1973 Lahore 500 as the principles of C.P.C. Are applicable in Constitutional proceedings as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner etc. PLD 1970 SC 1. The petitioner is willing to pay the tax of the current year to the respondents. The petitioner is directed to approach the respondents, who are directed to consider the request of the petitioner and respondents are also directed to consider the request of the petitioner to discharge her liabilities in easy instalments. The petitioner as mentioned above, is well within her right to approach the competent authority in terms of- sections 99-A and 100 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 for formulation of scheme qua the disabled persons for exemption of tax in-question.
' The competent authority of course shall consider the same in accordance with law.
' However, in the interest of justice and fair play, let a copy of this order be sent to respondent No,1 for information.
' With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.