'MUHAMMAD RAMZAN CHAUDHRY, J.---Brief facts for the disposal of instant writ petition as alleged are that the petitioner (Allama Iqbal Open University) is a Federal Government legal entity which was established under the Act of the Parliament (XXXIX of 1974 amended up to date) known as "Allama Iqbal Open University". The university is functioning under the control of Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan and is imparting education to the masses throughout the country with its unique mode of Distance Learning System. The respondent No,3 issued property tax bill dated 24-4-2006 demanding property tax for the period from 1995 to 2005 amounting to Rs,1,00,99,836 to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to deposit the tax up to 15-5-2006 but before the expiry of the last date a show-cause notice dated 29-4-2006 was served by the respondent No,3 upon the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the said tax within 7 days otherwise the recovery was to be made through Additional Collector Revenue, Islamabad. The petitioner University being Federal Educational Institution is operating under the control of Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, as such, is not liable to pay the property tax. The respondent authority has imposed the tax vide Notification No, S. R.
0.24(1)/2001 dated 11-1-2001 published in the gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary) on 12-1-2001.
Whereas, the case of the petitioner falls within the categories as specified in clause-4(6) of the said notification, wherein the buildings and lands owned by the Federal or a Provincial Government are exempted 100% from the levy of said tax. Moreover, the respondent authority has demanded the commercial property tax from the petitioner for the years 1995 to 2005 which is contrary to law and facts of the case.
2. The property tax bill and the show cause notice were challenged by the petitioner before the honourable Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No,1236 of 2006 which was dismissed on 15-5- 2006 with the following observations:-- "The petitioner neither filed any objection against the impugned bill nor sent any reply to the show- cause notice to the respondent. The petitioner, at the first instance should have filed the reply to the show-cause notice thereby apprising the respondent about the objections raised in the present petition and stating fact that the property tax is not leviable on the petitioner University.
Thus the petitioner has approached this Court without exhausting alternative remedy. As the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, which has not been resorted to by the petitioner, therefore, the present petition is also hit by Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. On this count too, the present petition cannot be entertained."
'The petitioner approached honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing Civil Petition No,449 of 2006 which was disposed of by the honourable apex Court vide order dated 20-6-2006 in the following terms:- "In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition which is disposed of accordingly. However, the Capital Development Authority is directed to determine the matter of liability or otherwise of the petitioner, within a period of one month, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, Allama Iqbal Open University."
3. In the light of the order passed by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the respondent authority provided an opportunity, of personal hearing to the petitiofier and decided the matter vide order dated 19-8-2006 in the following terms:- "It is transpired that the University is a corporate body and therefore net exempted from payment of property tax under clause 4(6) of the Notification dated 11-1-2001.
' However the representative of the University requested a time of one month to take up the case with Ministry of Education and Ministry of Interior for giant of exemption of Property Tax. The request was accepted."
'Thereafter, the representation was submitted by the petitioner before Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan for exemption from property tax and the same was also rejected vide memorandum No,4/10/2004-CDA.I dated 15-2-2007 issued by the Secretary Interior which is reproduced hereunder:-- "Allama Iqbal Open University is a body corporate as per provisions of section 3(3) of Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974. Buildings owned by the Federal or Provincial Governments are exempted from levy of property tax but public and private corporations are not exempted from levy of property tax under CDA Notification S.R.O. No, 24(I)/2001, dated 11-1-2001.
'Being a Semi-Government/ Autonomous Body(Controlled by the Federal Government), AIOU cannot be exempted from payment of Municipal levies i.e, Property Tax. It is pertinent to mention that CDA is also claiming the property Tax from other Semi Government/ Autonomous Bodies like Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Pakistan Police Foundation, IESCO etc. And they are paying this tax regularly."
'The petitioner has assailed the vires of bill of property tax, dated 24-4-2006, show-cause notice, dated 29-4-2006, order dated 19-8-2006 passed by the respondent No, 3 and letter dated 15-2- 2007 issued by the respondent No,l.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that bill of property tax, show-cause notice, order passed by the respondent No,3 and the letter issued by respondent No,1 are illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority and are in violation of the terms of the notification dated 11-1- 2001. Article 165 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan provides exemption to the petitioner from taxation but the respondents in sheer violation of this Article are imposing the property tax upon the petitioner. The respondents are grossly erred in construing the section 3(3) of the Allama Iqbal University Act, 1974 treating petitioner University as a corporate body like police foundation, etc., in fact the Allama Iqbal Open University has been given the status of corporate body under the Act of Parliament. It is not a body which is incorporated under the company laws.
Although the petitioner is a corporate bony by the name of Allama Iqbal University but it works as department of Government of Pakistan and its entire properties vest and are owned for all purposes by the Government of Pakistan. The case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of clause 4(6) of Notification No, S.R.O. 24(1)/2001 dated 11-1-2001, according to which buildings and lands owned by the Federal or a Provincial Government, but excluding public and private corporations are exempted for payment of property tax.
'Beside in previous Notification No,S.R.O.806(I)/91 dated 20-8-1991 under clause B(4), no tax was imposed upon Government/Semi Government owned buildings used for Educational purpose. In view of the above notification, no tax can be imposed upon the petitioner and the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.1 and 3 are liable to be set aside.
5. It has been further contended that Allama Iqbal Open University was established under the Act of Parliament (XXXIX) of 1974 amended up to date and the University is functioning under the Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan and imparting the education throughout the country with its unique mode of distance education. The Government of Pakistan through the Higher Education Commission is financing the University. As per section 8 of AIOU Act, the President of Pakistan is the Chancellor of the University whereas under section 9 of said Act, the Federal Minister for Education is the Pro-Chancellor of the Allama Iqbal University. Thus it is obvious that petitioner is a Government Controlled body and its buildings which have been subjected to levy of tax are government owned properties, as such the petitioner validly has sought the exemption in view of clause 4(6) of the said notification. There are various other buildings which are owned and controlled by the Government or Semi Government Organizations which are exempted from property tax. The reference has been made to other such like Educational Institutions which are functioning within the municipal limits of Islamabad but no such property tax has been claimed by the respondent No,3 from such Institutions and the petitioner University has been discriminated by the. Respondents.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the Revenue Directorate, CDA placed demand of property tax in the sum of Rs,10.99 Million in respect of Building owned, by Allama Iqbal Open University in terms of CDA (Imposition of Tax) Rules, 1981 and Clause 4 of the Notification dated 11-1-2001. In the light of order passed by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the earlier round of litigation, personal hearing was provided to the representative of the petitioner University. The stance taken by the representative of the University was not accepted by the respondents Nos.1 and 3 and it was held that University is a corporate body, therefore, not exempted from the payment of property tax under clause 4(6) of Notification dated 11-1-2001. The respondent No,3 has issued property tax, water and allied charges against properties to various buildings within municipal limits of Islamabad, including the petitioner University. The petitioner University is a Semi Autonomous body. Its functions are carried out under its own memorandum and Articles of Association; hence is not entitled for any exemption from the payment of property tax. According to clause 3(3) of Chapter. II of Allama Iqbal Open University it is a corporate body by the name of Allama Iqbal Open University, as such, under clause 6(4), S.R.O. 24(I)/2001 is not exempted from property tax. It has lastly been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that property tax was also demanded from the petitioner University according to Notification dated 28-6-1995. Notices for payment of property tax have also been issued to other Educational Institutions like National University of Modern Languages, International Islamic.
University, Quaid-iAzam University situated within the municipal limits of Islamabad and no such alleged discrimination is made against the petitioner, University.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Earlier the instant writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27-5-2008. The order was assailed in Civil Appeal No,304 of 2009 arisen out Civil Petition No,919 of 2008. The said civil appeal was disposed of by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 26-3- 2009. The impugned judgment dated 27-5-2008 passed by this Court was partially set aside to the extent of the petitioner University and the case was remanded for fresh disposal after discussing the clauses 4(4) and 4(6) S. R. O. No,24(I)/2001 dated 11-1-2001 independently. Their lordships in paragraph 4 of the said judgment have held as under:-- "The learned counsel when confronted, conceded that no reasons have been assigned by the High Court so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. In view of the facts of the case, petitioner's case has not been discussed and considered and we are of the opinion that the High Court shall dispose of the petitioner's case independently and discuss the relevant provisions of the Notification reproduced hereinabove. Therefore, in the circumstances, the impugned judgment is partially set aside to the extent of the petitioner and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal of the petition expeditiously, most appropriately within a period `of four weeks as question of levy of the tax is involved in this case."
9. The petitioner (Allama Iqbal Open University was established under the Act of Parliament known as Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974 (XXXIX of 1974) amended up to date). Section 3 of the said Act is reproduced herein which is as under:-- "3. Establishment and incorporation of the University. ---(1) There shall be established a University to be called People's Open University as a specialized educational institution with its Principal seat at Islamabad for purposes of teaching, holding of examinations and tests, establishment of audience level regional centres for guidance and examinations at the post-matric, graduate, post- graduate and research levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(1-A) The People's Open University as established in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall, on and from the commencement of the People's Open University/Amendment Ordinance, 1977, be renamed as the Allama Iqbal University.
(iv) Professors Emeritus.
(3) The University shall be a corporate body by the name of Allama Iqbal Open University and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
(4) The Universityshall be competent to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, and to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable and immovable property which may have become vested in or been acquired by it."
'Sections 4(v) and 28 relate to the powers and functions of the University, university fund, respectively, which are also reproduced hereunder:-- Section 4.
"4. Powers and functions of the University. The University shall have the powers.
(a) .....................................
(b) ..
(c) ..................................
(d) .
"(v). To receive and manage property transferred and grants, bequests, gifts, donations, endowments and other contributions made to the University and to invest any fund representing such property, grants, bequests, trusts, gifts, donations, endowments or contributions and to convert one kind of property into another, in such manner as it may deem fit. "
' Section 28.
"28. University Fund. The University shall have a fund to which shall be credited its income from fees, donations, trusts bequests, endowments, contributions, grants, property and all other sources."
10. Before dilating upon the merits of the case, the history of notifications issued by the respondents from time to time for imposition of property tax is very relevant. S.R.O. No,805(I)/91 was published in the extraordinary Gazette of Pakistan on 20-8-1991. According to clause B(4) of the said S.R.O., no tax was imposed against Government/Semi Government owned buildings used for educational purposes. Sub-clauses (4), (5) and (6) of clause B of said Notification are reproduced as under:-- Clause B. "Full/part exemption from property tax to the following categories:-
(1) .....
(2) .....
(3) .............
(4) Government/Semi-Government owned buildings used for educational purposes.
' No tax
(5) Public library.
' No tax."
(6) Government/Semi-Government owned hospital and dispensary buildings.
' No tax. "
' S. R. O. No, CDA. 30(9)(Noti)Coord/ 94/695 was published on 28th January, 1995 and as per clause 4(6), buildings and lands owned the Federal Government or a Provincial Government but excluding public and private corporations were granted 100% exemption from payment of tax. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:- "4. The following categories of buildings and lands shall be exempt from payment of tax to the extent shown against each category:-- Category_______________ Exemption
(1) .. ...................
(2) ................................
(3) ......................
(4) ....................................... -
(5) ............
(6) Buildings and lands owned 100% by the Federal or a Provincial Government, but excluding public and private corporations.
'The impugned S.R.O. No,4(I)/2001 dated 24-1-2001 was published in the Gazette of Pakistan extraordinary on 12-1-2001 exempted educational or .Training institutions and libraries located on the plot allotted for specified purposes and 'run wholly from charitable contributions and donations from payment of the said tax. Clause 4(6) introduced by. The S.R.O. No,805(I)91 dated 20-8-1991 was also reendorsed in the said S.R.O. . Relevant clauses of the impugned Notification are reproduced herein under:--
4. The following categories of buildings and lands shall be exempt from payment of tax to the extent shown against each category:- 'Category Exemption 0) ....................................
(2) ....................................
(3) ......................................... ....
(4) Hospitals, dispensaries, 100% clinics, educational or training institutions and libraries located on the plot allotted for specified purposes and run wholly from charitable contributions and donations.
(5) ...........................................
(6) Buildings and lands owned 100% by the Federal or a Provincial Government, but excluding public and private corporations.
11. By putting the version of both the parties together, < the question emerges to the effect that whether the petitioner University is exempt from. Property tax under clause 4(4) of S.R.O.
No,24(I)/2001 dated 11-1-2001 or not? Further whether the buildings/lands owned by or vested in Allama Iqbal Open University can be treated as properties owned by Federal Government under clause 4(6) of above said S.R.O. ? Now the case is examined on the touchstone of clauses 4(4) and 4(6) of above mentioned S.R.O. The clauses 4(6) and 4(4) has been reproduced in para 10 above.
The clause 4(4) of the S.R.O, has also been referred by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its order while remanding the case for fresh disposal.
12. Allama Iqbal Open University is established under People's Open University Act, 1974 and it was renamed as Allama Iqbal Open University through People Open University (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1977. This University was established, as laid down in section 3 of the Act, as a specialized institution for the purposes of teaching, holding of examinations and tests, establishment of audience level regional centres for guidance and examinations at the post- matric, graduate, post-graduate and research levels in accordance with the provisions of thfe Act.
So, this University is an educational institution. Section 28 of the Act provides for a University Fund.
The source of this fund includes donations, trusts, bequests, endowments, contributions, grants, property and income from fees, etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded at the bar that main source of income is.Grant/aid given by.The Federal Government through Higher Education Commission and other sources like fees, etc. Are very nominal rather negligible. This assertion has not been denied and disproved by the leamed counsel for the respondents. From perusal of the Act, especially section 3, it becomes vivid that this University is not involved in commercial activities and can be termed as charitable organization or non-profit organization. As discussed above, the main source of funding of this University is the grants/contributions given by the Federal Government through Higher Education Commission. Further, admittedly, this University is located at the plot allotted for the specified purpose. So, this university or education institution is covered under the clause 4 of the S.R.O. No,24(I)/2001 dated 11-1-2001. Leamed counsel for the respondent objected that the petitioner has not relied upon clause 4(4) of the S.R.O B rather it has only referred to the clause 4(6) of the S.R.O, in the petition, therefore, this provision cannot be considered and examined. In this respect, suffice is to say that the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has referred this clause in its order while remanding the case and directed this Court to discuss the relevant provisions of the notification. Even otherwise, this clause is also part of the very same notification under which the property tax has been levied. So, this clause can also be examined and considered for ascertaining the tax liability of the petitioner University. Hence the objection has got no merit.
13. As far as clause 4(6) of above S.R.O, is concerned, both the parties have taken divergent and opposing positions. The version of the petitioner is that the University is necessarily a Federal Government entity, therefore, its properties are exempt from the property tax under clause 4(6) of the S.R.O. Whereas the version of the respondent is that he University is a body corporate or corporation, therefore, it is expressly excluded from exemption under the above clause. It may be noted that the buildings and lands owned by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government are exempt from the property tax under Article 165 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as well as under clause 4(6) of the above mentioned S.R.O. Now the precise question to be determined is that whether the buildings and lands owned by or vested in the Petitioner University can be treated as property owned by the Federal Government?
14. Under section 8 of Allama Iqbal Open University Act, the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a Chancellor of the University whereas the Federal Minister for Education is a Pro- Chancellor of the University under section 9 of the Act. Perusal of sections 9 and 10 of the Act leads that the Federal Minister for Education, being a Pro-Chancellor of the University, has got over-all directory role or position in the affairs of the University and he exercises vast powers. Further, the Vice- Chancellor of the University is appointed by the Chancellor i.e, the President. Moreover, Treasurer of the University, who, inter alia, manages the property, the finances and the investments of the University, is appointed by the Pro- Chancellor under section 14 of the Act. As per section I6 of the Act, an officer of the Federal Government is deputed as University Auditor. It may also be mentioned here that the Chancellor/ President may direct any officer, teacher or employee of the University to serve in the Government Department or an Educational or Research Institution in the public interest. Further the Chancellor/President may also place the services of the employee of the Government or any other University or education or research institution at the disposal of the petitioner University in the public interest. In addition to the above, it is mentioned that the Executive Council of the Petitioner University contains majority of members belonging to Government of Pakistan. Besides, as discussed above, the main source of funding of the University is the grant/financial assistance extended by the Federal Government though Higher Education Commission. In the above circumstances, it may very safely be inferred that the Federal Government exercises over all control over the affairs of the petitioner University.
15. The question arises as to whether the University may be taken as Federal Government for the purposes of afore referred Notification and secondly whether it stands exempted from payment of property tax in terms of Articles 165 and 165-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, The said Articles are reproduced hereunder:-- "165. Exemption of certain public property from taxation:
(1) The Federal Government shall not, in respect of its property or income, be liable to taxation under any Act of Provincial Assembly and, subject to clause (2), a Provincial Government shall not, in respect of its property or income, be liable to taxation under Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or under Act of the Provincial Assembly of any other Province.
(2) If a trade or business of any kind is carried on by or on behalf of the Government of a Proyince outside that province,, that Government may, in respect of any property used in connection with that trade or business or any income arising from that trade or business be taxed under Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or under Act of the Provincial Assembly of the Province in which that trade or business is carried on.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the imposition of fees for services rendered.
165-A. Power of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to impose tax on the ' income of certain corporation, etc:
(1) For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has, and shall be deemed always to have had, the power .To make a law to provide for the levy and recovery of a tax on the income of a corporation, company or other body or institution established by or under a Federal law or. a Provincial law or an existing law or a corporation, company or other "body or institution owned or controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the Federal Govemment or a Provincial Govemment, regardless of the ultimate destination of such income.
(2) All orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by any authority or person, which were made, tak.En or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, before the commencement of the Constitution (Amendment), Order, 1985, in exercise of the powers derived from any law referred to in clause (1), or in execution of any orders made by any authority in the exercise or purported exercise of powers as afore-said, shall, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court or Tribunal, including the Supreme Court and a High Court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shafi not be called in question in any Court, including the Supreme Court and a High Court, on any ground whatsoever.
(3) Even judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal including the Supreme Court and a High Court, which is repugnant to the provisions of clauses (1) or clause (2) shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, void and of no effect whatsoever."
'The Courts have taken diverse position on the interpretation of said Articles in different cases. The honourable Supreme Court was of the view in PLD 1985 SC 1997 Central Board of Revenue v. SITE that SITE is a limited company, however, as it is effectively controlled by the Provincial Govemment, hence, is exempted from payment of income tax. This view was followed by Sindh High Court in a number of cases including case of Rice Export Corp. Of Pakistan Ltd. v. Karachi Municipal Corporation PLD 1990 Kar.
186. It has further been followed by Lahore High Court in case of Chairman District Council, Rahim Yar Khan v. United Bank Ltd. 1986 CLC 1397. The position, however, changed when the honourable Supreme Court passed a judgment in case of Union Council, Ali Wahan, Sukkur v. Associated Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 SCM R 468. In this case Associated Cement, which is a cement manufacturing company was wholly owned by the Government but was held to be liable to pay octroi taxes irrespective of the fact that it was wholly owned by the Federal Government. The distinguishing factor is that the company is a public limited company engaged in a commercial activity and is not providing essential services to the general public. The view expressed in the judgments prior to the case of Associated Cement was later on also followed in the case titled WAPDA v. Government of Sindh PLD 1998 Kar.209. The latest judgment on the point is that of the honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 2005 SC 670 titled as Province N.-W.F.P, v. PTC wherein the honourable Supreme Court have disallowed the benefit of Article 165 to PTCL on the ground that since the enactment of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, PTCL is a limited company and it will not be entitled to benefits enjoyed by its predecessor Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation or Telephone and Telecommunication department, which were statutory corporations and departments, respectively. It was held in case titled Messrs Oxford University Press v. Commission of Income Tax reported as 2007 PTD 1533 (Karachi High Court) that benefit of exemption from income tax provided under clause 86 of Second Schedule, read with section 14(1), Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 to the income of Universities and educational institutions, is only available to those universities or other educational institutions, which are established solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit. Use of phrase "established solely for education purposes" in clause 86 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, thus has its own connotation and significance, which disqualifies such universities and other educational institutions for exemption, which are engaged in any income generating activity/business other than imparting education in Pakistan.
16. It appears that the Courts are basically concerned that whether the corporation under consideration is a business organization or is providing basic necessities like education to the people as an extending arm of the respective government. In case of statutory corporations, providing basic necessities, the Courts generally took the view that they are entitled to benefit of Article 165 of the Constitution and are exempted from taxes.
17. Under section 3(3) of Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974, University has been declared as a corporate body. Now the effect of this provision is to be determined and it is to be ascertained whether the petitioner University is a corporation within the meaning of clause 4(6) of the S.R.O, and is not exempt from the property tax? In Pakistan Corporations are not created by Royal Charter but they are incorporated either by a statute like the Karachi Port Trust, incorporated under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, or by registration under a statute like companies under the Companies Act or associations under the Societies Act or co-operative societies under the Cooperative Societies Act or a trust under the Trusts Act, etc. Broadly speaking, there are two main kinds of corporations i.e, Civil Corporations and Charitable Corporations/ non-profit Organization. In the Blacks Law Dictionary (8th Edition), these corporations have been defined as under Charitable or eleemosynary Corporation.
"A Non-profitable corporation that is dedicated to benevolent purposes and thus entitled to specialize tax under the Internal Revenue Code"
Civil Corporation "Any Corporation other than a charitable or religious corporation"
'A Charitable Corporation may also be equated with a Charitable Organization. Black's Law Dictionary defines "Charitable Organization" as follows:- Charitable Organization "A tax-exempt organization that (1) is organized and operated exclusively for religious, scientific, literary, educational, athletic, public-safety, or community-service purposes, (2) does not distribute earnings for the benefit of private individuals, and (3) does not participate in any way in political candidate campaigns, or engage in substantial lobbying."
When the objectives of the petitioner University are perused in section 3 of the Act, it becomes clear that this University or the body corporate falls under the category of Charitable Corporations. It has been pleaded at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a nonprofit organization and is not involved in any of the commercial activities. Further, this University is not competing with other organizations in business or commercial matters. This position has not been controverted by the other side. So, this University being a non-profit or charitable corporation/organization stands at a different pedestal as compared to the other corporations, either public or private, which are involved in commercial activities and are in competition with other organizations in the commercial activities or business matters.
18. The version of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner University is a corporate body or corporation, therefore, is not exempt from the property tax. As discussed above, it may be noted that it is not a business/ commercial corporation rather it is a sort of non-profit organization. Unlike other corporations, it has not got the share holders for sharing profit or loss. The students or public at large is the beneficiary of this organization and even the State is indirect beneficiary because objectives of promotion of education and literacy are achieved through this Educational Institution. It has not got any permanent directors rather it has got an Executive Council which is represented by most of the Ex-Officio members or members appointed for limited periods. The Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor and Vice- Chancellor as well as the members of Executive Council or Academic Council have got' no interest or right in the properties or income of the petitioner University. So, it is a different type of a body corporate as compared to the other corporations which have got the share holders of beneficiaries. Moreover, the petitioner University has been established under the Act of the Parliament and has not been incorporated under Companies Ordinance or Co-operative Societies Act.
19. Another question arises that who will succeed or inherit the properties of the petitioner University, in case, the University is closed. The Act does not provide any beneficiary or the Directors or the Share-holders who will inherit such property. However, it may be inferred and gathered from the scheme of Allama Iqbal Open University Act that the properties/ assets including lands and buildings of the petitioner University will revert to the Federal Government in such an eventuality.
So, in such circumstances, no one else has got any interest in the property of the petitioner University.
20. In the above back-drop, the purpose and intent of section 3(3) of the Act, which declares the University as a corporate body, look only to award status of a juristic person enabling it to run the affairs of the University independently and smoothly. When this section is read in conjunction with the remaining provisions of the Allama Iqbal Open University Act, it may be very safely inferred that term "Corporate Body" used in section 3(3) ibid, does not connote towards a Civil or Profitable Corporation. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, the veil of incorporation has been lifted for seeking beyond the scope of corporate body or the juristic person and for analyzing the provisions of Allama Iqbal Open University Act to determine the status of the petitioner University and to ascertain whether the buildings/lands owned by it can be treated as property of the Federal Government or not? It is a fit case for unveiling the veil of incorporation. Resultantly, it may be concluded that the petitioner University is working in furtherance of the objectives of Ministry of Education, Federal Government, and it can be considered as an attached Department of the Ministry of Education. So, it may also be termed as a Federal Government entity. Even if this University is considered as a corporation in terms of section 3(3) of the Act, then it will be a charitable corporation/non-profit Organization which cannot be equated with other commercial or business corporations, either public or private. So, even in this capacity, it would be entitled to special tax status and it shall not come into the purview of the term corporation mentioned in clause 4(6) of the S.R.O. No,24(I)/2001 dated 11-1-2001. In short, in view of Allama Iqbal Open University Act, 1974, the buildings/lands owned by or vested in the Petitioner University may be treated as the property of the Federal Government and, thus exempted from the property tax under clause 4(6) of above-mentioned S.R.O.
21. The nutshell of above discussion is that the case of the petitioner University is covered under both clauses i.e, 4(4) and 4(6) of S.R.O. No,24(I)/2001 dated 11-1-2001 and is exempted from levy of property tax. Resultantly this writ petition is allowed, the impugned bill, order and letter issued by the respondents are declared illegal, unlawful and of no legal consequence. There is no order as to costs.