Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.--The contesting Respondents Nos, 3 to 7 filed Writ Petition No, 8091/2005 calling in question the validity of Gazette notification dated 10.2.2005 published by the petitioners for enhancing the fees on advertisement etc. The same was allowed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned judgment dated 11.7.2005. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposals for the revision of the fees in question were duly published in the national press including the Daily Nawa-e-Waqt dated 29.4.20.04 and the Daily Jang dated 1.5.2004 inviting objections from the general public. A number of objections were filed from the side of the Respondents Nos, 3 to 7. The draft notification of the proposals was sent to the Respondent No, 1 for vetting before the same was placed before the Tehsil Council as required by Section 116 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001. The procedure prescribed by Rules 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Punjab Local Government (Taxation) Rules, 2001 was scrupulously complied with. It was lastly submitted that the notification dated 10.2.2005 was validly published so as to take effect from the date of its publication in the Gazette i,e, 10.2.2005 and not w,e,f, 1.7.2004 as erroneously mentioned therein.
3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents Nos, 3 to 7 argued that the notification dated 10.2.2005 was unlawfully made effective from 1.7.2004 as clearly mentioned therein. It was further contended that the Tehsil Municipal Council/Administration was not competent to levy and fee on the bill boards which subject matter was exclusively reserved for the Zilla Council in City Districts vide Item No, 11 of Part II and Item No, 6 of Part III of Second Schedule of the Ordinance. It was lastly submitted that the Tehsil Municipal Councils/Administrations had already been reorganized/reconstituted. Therefore, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that the Taxation proposals were widely published in the press by inviting objections. The contesting Respondent No, 3 and others had raised objections. The taxation proposals were sent to the Government for vetting as required by law. Thereafter, the Tehsil Municipal Council/Administration in its meeting dated 28.9.2004 approved the taxation proposals which were thereafter notified to the Punjab Gazette on 10.2.2005. The procedural requirements of the law were satisfied by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that the revision of taxes and fees would take effect from 10.2.2005 i,e, from the date of publication of the notification in the Punjab Gazette and not from 1.7.2004 as mentioned therein. The other questions raised by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents were not agitated before the High Court. Therefore, we would not like to express any opinion in regard thereto. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is not sustainable at law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 11.7.2005, passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No, 8091/2005 is set aside. Consequently, the writ Petition No, 9081/2005 of the Respondents No, 3 to 7 shall stand dismissed. The petitioner shall be liable to refund the revised amount of fees etc., if any, collected during the period from 1.7.2004 to 8.2.2005 in pursuance of notification dated 31.5.2004 as published in the Punjab Gazette on 10.2.2005. There shall be no order as to costs.