1. ' AMANULLAH KHAN, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by Nazim, Zarghoon Town, wherein following relief has been sought:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court may please be declared as follows:---
(a) Declaring that the order dated 14-7-2003 and the proclamation issued thereafter is illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(b) Declaring that the letters/orders notification issued by the respondent No,4 in excess of his authority are also illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(c) That the respondent No,4 be permanently restrained from interfering with the lawful duties and obligations of the petitioner particularly with regard to the municipal administration and management.
(d) Similarly the respondents Nos.l to 3 be directed to follow the Local Government Ordinance, 2001 in its true prospective by restraining the respondent No,4 to not interfere in the lawful affairs of the petitioner.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may found fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case and cost of the proceeding may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
2. ' The background leading to filing of this petition is; that, Provincial Government promulgated the Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance XVII of 2001) on 9th August, 2001 (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). The purpose of promulgating the Ordinance, is contained in Chapter 3.3 of the Local Government Proposed Plan, prepared and worked out by the National Reconstruction Bureau and issued in May, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plan'), which reads as under:-- 3.3 Empowerment Targets:--- ' Making the principles outlined in the previous section a reality of daily life for the public will require fundamental restructuring of the current system. In order to achieve this goal, five empowerment targets have been identified. These are devolution of political power, decentralization of authority, de-concentration of management functions, diffusion of the power authority nexus, and distribution of resources. The district and local Government reform has been designed to achieve these targets. The combination of these targets and the structures and systems of the reformed local Government will create the means through which the principles can manifest themselves.
3. ' For the purpose of disposal of this petition pra.3.3.1.5 would also be relevant, which as such, is reproduced herein- below:-- 3.3.1.5 A complementary principle is that no power, authority, function, or resource shall be taken from a lower level by a higher level without the consent of the lower level concerned. This protective measure against re-centralization will also apply at all levels, from the village through the Province in terms of lower levels vis-a-vis all higher levels. Federalism, provincial autonomy, local development, and grass-roots empowerment are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. In Pakistan, unchecked and unbalanced political and administrative power needs to be devolved. The devolution of power to the local level is an essential part of that process."
4. ' After the promulgation of the Ordinance, a new Local Government system was set-up/created with effect from 14th August 2001 and as per section 187 of the Ordinance, 30th June, 2002, was fixed, as a cut off line, for giving effect to the provisions of the Ordinance, in letter and spirit. As a consequence of the Ordinance, the defunct Quetta Municipal Corporation, was re-structured as follows:--
(i) Quetta City District Government.
(ii) Zarghoon Town.
(iii) Chilton Town.
5. ' The limits of City District Government, as well as that of Zarghoon Town and Chilton Town, have been separately prescribed, whereas all the three Administrative Bodies are headed by separate Nazims.
6. ' After the elections, the respective returned candidates took over the charge of the offices of Quetta City District Government, Zarghoon Town and Chilton Town, as Nazims. The Nazim, Zarghoon Town (petitioner) after taking over the charge, started functions, as envisaged under sections 54 and 54-A of the Ordinance. A dispute arose, regarding management of the properties, belonging to the defunct QMC, situated within the limits of Zarghoon Town. In this behalf, the petitioner in capacity of Nazim, Zarghoon Town, entered into agreements, with the shopkeepers of Mutton Market and leased out vacant Cabins, situated behind the City Police Station. Whereas, the Nazim, Quetta City District Government, cancelled all such lease agreements. To settle this dispute, a suit was filed by the tenants-shopkeepers wherein, it was prayed that, Nazim, City District Government, may be restrained from interfering in the said Cabins. The suit was contested up to this Court, and finally it was held that, property in dispute vests in the City District Government, as envisaged under section 180 of the Ordinance.
7. ' It so happened that thereafter the petitioner, as Nazim, Zarghoon Town, had been trying to take practical possession/control of the properties, belonging to the defunct QMC, situated within the territorial limits of Zarghoon Town, which was resisted by the Nazim, Quetta City District Government (respondent No,4). Hence instant petition has been filed.
8. ' We have heard at length, Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, learned counsel for petitioner, assisted by Mr. Qahir Shah, Advocate, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No,4, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, learned Additional A.G. For respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Mumtaz Yousaf, learned Standing Counsel.
9. ' Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, raised the following contentions:--
(i) That, very purpose of promulgation of the Ordinance, was to decentralize the Powers, as contained in the plan, with further objectives of devolution of Political Power; decentralization of Management functions; diffusion of the power-authority nexus and distribution of recourses.
(ii) In view of these fundamental basics, on which the Ordinance stand, petitioner has the authority and power to manage/control the properties, situated within the territorial limits of Zarghoon Town and respondent, being Nazim of City District Government, has no authority/power to manage/control the said properties.
10. ' In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the Commentary/Notes by Maxwell, on the Interpretation of Statutes, regarding, 'the mischief rule' and the Introductory Chapter, containing definition of 'Statute'.
11. ' On the other hand, Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No,4, emphatically argued that, under the Ordinance, the properties belonging to the defunct QMC, have been inherited by the City District Government, thus, respondent No,4, has the jurisdiction to exercise powers i.e, management, collection of rent etc. In respect of the said properties. Learned counsel referred to sub-clause (a) of section 180 of the Ordinance and contended that, properties belonging to the defunct Quetta Municipal Corporation shall be succeeded by the Quetta City District Government.
12. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel argued that, under the repealed Ordinance, the properties, likewise were inherited by the Municipal Corporation and referred to the Ordinances, such as British Balochistan Bazar Fund Ordinance, 1910, Balochistan Local Government Act, 1975 and Balochistan Local Council Property Rules, 1983. By referring to these Statutes, learned counsel stated that even under the previous laws, the properties were inherited by the then defunct Municipal Corporations which is now inherited by the City District Government. Learned counsel further stated that, Balochistan Local Government Rules have not been repealed and still hold the field. Additionally, it was argued that, it was amicably settled in a High Powered meeting that, the properties shall vest in the City District Government.
13. ' Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, learned Addl: A.-G. However, opposed the petition and adopted the arguments of Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Advocate.
14. ' Mr. Mumtaz Yousaf, learned Standing Counsel, also stated that properties of defunct Quetta Municipal Corporation shall vest in the Quetta City District Government, by way of inheritance.
15. ' Adverting to the contention of learned counsel for petitioner, it may be noted that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, promulgation of the Ordinance is based on the intention of the Legislature, as contained in paras.3.3 and 3.3.1.5 of the Plan. However, for disposal of this petition, it would be appropriate to confine ourselves to the relevant sections i.e, 15, 16 and 180 of the Ordinance, which reads as under:-- "15. Entrustment of certain decentralized offices to Tehsil Municipal Administration:--- ' Subject to section 14 and section 52, on commencement of this Ordinance, the administrative and financial management of the offices of Local Government and Rural Development Department, Public Health Engineering Department and Housing and Physical Planning Department which were providing services at the regional, zonal, circle, divisional, district and tehsil levels shall stand entrusted to respective Tehsil Municipal Administration or Town Municipal Administration, as the case may be, along with the employees working in such offices: ' Provided that the Government may direct for retention of certain components of Housing and Physical Planning Department with the District Government along with the officers and members of staff working therein.
16. Authority and responsibility of District Government:---
(1) The authority of the District Government shall comprise "operation" management control of offices of departments which decentralized to it or may be set up under this Ordinance, provided that the District Government shall exercise such authority within the district in accordance with the general policy of the Government.
(2) Every order in the District Government shall be expressed to be made in the name of the District Government and shall be executed by an officer or authority of the District Government duly authorized.
(3) The District Government shall be responsible to the people and the Government for improvement of governance and delivery of services within the ambit of the authority decentralized to it under this Ordinance.
180. Succession of the properties, assets and liabilities.---Subject to section 123, on commencement of this Ordinance, the properties, assets and liabilities of the Local Councils; namely, Municipal Corporations, District Councils, Municipal Committees, Town Committees, Union Councils under the Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980 (II of 1980), shall be succeeded by the following local Governments under this Ordinance:--
(a) City District Government in the case of Municipal Corporation in the concerned City District, as the case may be;
(b) District Government in the case of District Council;
(c) Tehsil Municipal Administration in the case of Municipal Corporations, Municipal Committees and Town Committees in the Tehsil, as the case may be; and
(d) Union Administration in the case of Union Councils: ' Provided that the liabilities of the predecessor local Governments shall be discharged in accordance with the existing arrangements: ' Provided further that the discharge of liabilities of the decentralized offices shall remain with the Government."
16. ' Learned counsel for petitioner, to strengthen his argument, laid emphasis on sections 51, 52, 53, 54 and 54-A of the Ordinance and stated that since under section 187 of the Ordinance, 30th June, 2002 was fixed as cut off line, therefore, after lapse of said date, now the Government has become functus officio, to interpret the provisions of aforesaid sections and prayed that, aforesaid provisions may be interpreted to the effect, as mentioned in section 15 that, petitioner shall have the authority to manage the properties and to receive the rent etc. Irrespective of the fact; whether the roperties belong to it or not? But since the properties are situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Zarghoon Town, therefore, the petitioner would have the control over the same for all practical purposes.
17. ' It may be observed that, regarding interpretation of Statutes, the Superior Courts have laid down the following settled principles, which have not been disputed and still carry weight:--
(i) That, in the interpretation of a written Instrument i.e, Acts, Ordinance, etc. The first object of the Court is to discover the intention of Legislature, which can only be gathered from the words used in the Statute and further plain meaning of the words is to be given and if the words are plain, clear, unequivocal and capable of one meaning, it would not be permissible to have resort to the material aliunde i.e, outside the Statute involved.
(ii) In case of any ambiguity, the second rule of interpretation is the intention of the Legislature, to be derived from consideration of the whole enactment, in order to arrive at a consistent plan.
18. ' A statute may not be extended or interpreted in the manner, for which, it was never intended.
19. ' If in the same Statute, there are special and general enactments, then the former must be given effect to.
20. ' In this behalf reference may be made to the following extracts of Crawford on the Statutory Construction at pages 256 and 257, and Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, which reads as follows:-- Crawford on Statutory Construction, pp.256-257:
164. Source of the legislative intent, generally:---Since the Legislature must express its intention by a written statute, that intention, in any instance, must primarily be ascertained from the language used in the statute itself, and not from conjectures aliunde. In other words, before the Court can resort to any other source for assistance, it must first seek to find the legislative intention from the words, phrases and sentences which make up the statute subject to construction. If the meaning of the language of the statute is plain, then according to the rule announced in enumerable cases, there is really no need for construction as the legislative intention is revealed by the apparent meaning, that is the meaning clearly expressed by the language of the statute. In this case, the statute is given a literal interpretation. It is interpreted to mean exactly what it says. Only where the statute is of doubtful meaning can the Court endeavor to determine the legislative intention from elements beyond the language of the statute."
21. ' Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, pages 28 and 29.
22. "The rule of construction is 'to intend the Legislature to have meant what they have actually expressed.' The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, 'but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used,' for 'it is well accepted that the beliefs and assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law'.
23. ' Where the language is plain and admits of but one meaning the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. 'The decision in this case,' said Lord Moris of Borth-yGest in a revenue case, 'calls for a full and fair application of particular statutory language to particular facts as found. The desirability or the undesirability of one conclusion as compared with another cannot furnish a guide in reaching a decision'. Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal language capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the Legislature, it must be enforced however, harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be. The interpretation of a statute is not to be collected from any notions which may be entertained by the Court as to what is just and expedient; words are not to be construed, contrary to their meaning, as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should not be embraced or excluded. 'The duty of the Court is to expound the law as it stands, and to "leave the remedy (if one be resolved upon) to others."
24. ' Now coming to the interpretation of said sections on the touchstone of aforesaid principles. It may be observed that section 15 of the Ordinance, envisages that administrative and financial management of the offices, mentioned therein, shall stand transferred to the Te" Municipal or Town Munir Administration, as the case may be, with the employees. The said septic silent about the management of properties. It would be appropriate to refer to section 180 of the Ordinance, which deals with the succession of properties, assets and liabilities. In clause (a) of this section, it has been clearly mentioned that, City District Government shall inherit or succeed in the case of Municipal Corporation in the concerned City District. A simple and plain reading of the same would imply that, intention of the Legislature is very clear, mentioning therein that the properties owned by defunct Municipal Corporation shall vest in the City District Government. We are not persuaded to subscribe to the arguments of Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gilani, learned counsel that, since the property is situated in the territorial limits of Zarghoon Town, therefore, petitioner will manage/control the same. Section 180 of the Ordinance, makes it clear and further, admittedly the properties falling within the territorial limits of Zarghoon Town, were owned by Quetta Municipal Corporation, which in view of section 180 of the Ordinance, would now vest in Quetta City District Quetta. It may not be out of place to refer to the minutes of meeting held on 20th February, 2002, wherein, it was recommended that the control of Municipal Buildings/lands shall be maintained by the City District Government. It would be appropriate to reproduce herein-below the relevant portion of the Minutes, which reads as under:-- "8. The control of Municipal Buildings and lands shall be maintained by the City District Government and their receipts shared between the City and Town Governments in the ratio suggested by the Consultant and accepted by the Nazims with a consensus."
25. ' It was further resolved in the meeting that, properties shall be under the control of City District Government and proceed shall be distributed amongst the two Towns i.e, Chilton and Zarghoon Town. The said decision was taken in the meeting which was also attended by the Nazim, Sarghoon Town. It may be observed that, purpose of the Ordinance was, as expounded hereinabove, but as far as management of the properties is concerned, this power vests in City District Government and thus the petitioner has no concern and it shall only be entitled to the collected proceed, to its extent, as agreed.
26. ' It is pertinent to observe that, provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance are general and the provisions of section 180 are particular and special. It particularly deals with succession and inheritance of the properties situated in the then Municipal Corporations which will be mien over by the City District Governments. Thus in view of the above, provisions of section 180 of the Ordinance will have an overriding effect on the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance. And as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that, intention of the Legislature is quite clear that, as far as the management of the properties is concerned, that power exclusively vests in the City District Government, it may also be noted at this stage that, learned counsel for respondent has placed on record, documents pertaining to properties belonging to Karachi Metropolitan and Lahore Metropolitan, which have been inherited by the respective City District Governments, which further strengthen the case of the respondent that the intention of the Legislature was quite clear, that properties of defunct Municipal Corporations were inherited by City District Government.
27. ' In view of the over-all discussion,. We see no merits in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.