SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioner who owned a Cement Factory on Mangopir Road, outside the territorial limit of the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation appear to be aggrieved by various demands of the respondent No,2 requiring the petitioner to pay conservancy rates calculated on the basis of 50% of the water rates payable by them. According to the petitioner while they are paying water rates for supply of bulk water by the respondent No,2 according to the prescribed rates, they are not liable to pay conservancy charges inasmuch as they have their own system for maintenance and operation of sewerage works in their factory area and disposal of sewerage and waste in their own Septic Tanks and Soak Pits etc. Their premises is not connected with any drain being operated by the respondent No,2 or the then Metropolitan Corporation.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No,2 the above statement of facts has not been disputed. However, it has been contended that conservancy charges at the rate of 50% of the bulk supply water charges are leviable upon all properties whether connected with or not with the respondent's sewerage system and whether it is located within or outside K.M.C. Limits. Reliance is placed upon Notification No,MC/PS/221/95, published in Sindh Government Gazette dated 13-3- 1996. It has been pointed out that while earlier Notification prescribing such rates issued in 1990, 1992, and 1994 contemplated such charges to be payable only by those whose premises was connected with sewerage system by the respondent No,2, such distinction does not exist in the aforesaid Notification. The factual matrix being undisputed, the only question requires to be determined would be whether the conservancy rates in-question are in the nature of a tax simplictor or merely a fee or a charge for rendition whereof the respondent No,2 is entitled to collect charges.
3. In the first place we are extremely doubtful whether any local council could levy a tax for the purposes of generally generating its revenue. Nevertheless keeping in view the clear distinction between a tax and fee spelt out by the Honourable Supreme Court we have already held through separate judgment in C.Ps. Nos.730 of 1991 and 1342 of 1998 that conservancy charges leviable by the respondent No,2 are only in the nature of fee for rendition of specific services and cannot be levied in case no service is being performed.
' For the reasons recorded in detail in the above matter this petition was also allowed vide our short order, dated 8-5-2003.