1. Today Mr. Manzoor Ahmed has filed a statement on behalf of City District Government, wherein it has been averred that due to amendment in the bye-laws the rates applicable in the year 1999 have been enhanced to reflect the increased costs of infrastructure development. He also submitted that it has not yet been determined as to who was at fault for not processing the petitioner's application for commercialization which admittedly was filed in the year 1999. However, according to him perhaps this was the fault of the petitioner himself who had not followed-up the matter with the City District Government. At this juncture, we had informed Mr.- Manzoor Ahmed that the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of City District Government, abundantly make clear under the caption of "Brief History" that such delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner.
2. On the other hand, it is equally incumbent upon the petitioner that the should follow the Building Control Rules as existing in the year 1999 if he wants to avail of the charges prevailing at that time for commercialization as observed in the last order as such commercialization charges as prevailing today are not retrospective in nature: Indeed no law or rule putting a financial burden upon citizens can be retrospective in nature unless and until the same specifically so provide which is not the case in the present matter.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we would dispose of this petition by directing that the petitioner is only liable to pay such commercialization charges as were levialbe in the year 1999 but at the same time he would also be bound by the building rules then existing. One month time is granted to the City District Government to finalize the process of commercialization and the petitioner shall deposit the amount of commercialization charges within one week from today as per the scale prevailing in the year 1999.