IJAZ AHMAD, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks the return of Rs.
1,20,50,000/- paid by him to the respondent No. 1 as consideration for collecting the tax for the excavation of the Stones, Bujri, Sand, Khaka and earth etc. The respondent Zila Council auctioned this right to collect the tax on the said items for the year 1995-1996 commencing from 15.10.1995 ending on 14.10.1996 for a consideration of Rs. 1,20,50,000/-. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction proceedings that took place on 15.10.1995.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date when the auction took place, the respondent was conscious of the fact that the Government of the Punjab had already vide Notification dated 22.11.1992 No. SOVI(LG)5(110)/92 abolished the excavation tax therefore, the auctioning of right to collect the tax was male fide and was devised to fleece a huge amount of money from the successful bidder which unluckily was the petitioner. The depositing of the whole amount of the bid money is not denied by the respondent No. 1 in the written comments, submitted.
It is contended that since the tax had been abolished, therefore, the petitioner could not collect it from excavator and has right to reclaim the amount paid by him.
3. The learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent argues that the petitioner had been collecting the tax. As per paragraph 1 of the' agreement between the parties, the petitioner had bound down himself to give up the contract if the tax was abolished by the Government and that he would not claim any amount of compensation for cancellation of the contract. The receipt of the contractual amount is however admitted by the respondent No. 1 in the comments submitted by it.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG and gone through the record.
5. The Zila Council under Section 138 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 has the right to impose and collect the tax. It can also enter into a contract for collection of the same. The Government of Punjab through the above-said notification had already abolished the excavation tax therefore respondent No. 1 had no more the authority to auction the right of its collection. The act of auctioning the collection right committed by the respondent No. 1 is tantamount to highway robbery committed against the public. They have deprived the un-traceable and obscure excavator and the public in general who were the consumers of those goods, at the added price of huge amount of money. The petitioner is an equal subscriber to this wrongful act. As per paragraph 3 of the agreement 1/10th of the auction money, 2% as the security, one instalment and income tax at 3% was to be initially paid by the contractor. The remaining amount was to be. Paid in 10 equal instalments before the 15th of every month. The paying of the remaining ten instalments by the petitioner indicates and proves that he has been collecting the tax from the people. Had he been stopped by the respondent or by the operation of notification dated 22.11.1992 from the collection of the tax or had he been denied the payment by the excavators, he would have not paid the subsequent instalments. In my view the petitioners and respondent No. 1, both have colluded in depriving the people engaged in the excavation of the said material of their hard-earned money and in making fortune for themselves and for their iuccessor-in-interest. They, all deserve exemplary and deterrent treatment. Since no one from the public has turned up to demand the return of, tax paid by them to .The petitioner, which partly was to end up in the pockets of the respondents as well, I can only constrain myself in dismissing this petition with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner in the office of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Cour.