COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE
2. The claimant is aggrieved by non providing of the municipal services despite several applications given by the claimant including previous complaint No.1586/289/11 in this court and despite issuance of legal notice. He has requested that the accounts of the defendant should be frozen and he should be banned from exercising his powers till providing municipal services to the claimant.
3. The complaint has been contested by the defendant through his counsel by filing the written statement to the effect that the sanitation fee has not been imposed in Kot Sultan city; that the services are being provided free of cost; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the claimant is not entitled to file the complaint; that the municipal services are being provided daily to the community; that the street of the claimant has been constructed by PCC concrete; that concrete drain is properly constructed; that the water is passing in the drain properly; that street light has been provided which is functional; that the sweeping of the concerned street is being conducted daily by the staff; that the facility for sweeping and disposal of garbage water is available in whole of the city of Kot Sultan; that the job is being done in time; that temporary encroachments have been got removed from the street of Shehzad Tangwani; that the notice has not been received; that the sewer is to be fixed by Public Health Department; that the receipt of notice is not attached; that the contents of the complaint are not correct; that the claimant is patent applicant. It is requested by TMO of TMA Layyah that the complaint be dismissed.
4. A perusal of the objection petition filed by the claimant about contents of the written statement shows that he has demanded the production of notification about imposing sanitation fee and also demanded the production of daily record about alleged daily services being rendered by the staff of the defendant in the concerned locality and pointed out about the denial of order dated 30-01-2012 passed by this court in file No.1586/289/11 and also pointed out about the proceedings of Regional Directorate Anti Corruption Establishment u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and requested for the acceptance of main complaint.
5. A perusal of order dated 30-01-2012 passed by this court in the file of the complaint No.1586/289/11 titled Shehzad Tangwani V DCO Layyah, a copy of which is available on the computer of this court shows that the reply of TMA in the said case was to the effect that the services of TMA would be gradually improved after recruitment of more staff and availability of funds. The operative paragraphs of the said order are being reproduced in this order for the facility of reference and for compliance in the following four paragraphs.
"4. The reply of TMA is to the effect that the services of TMA would be gradually improved after recruitment of more staff and availability of funds."
"9. I have observed that as far as the remaining disputes mentioned in the complaint are concerned, the same are general in nature against different departments of the government supervised by District Co-ordination Officer including some departments which are not being supervised by DCO as such it is clarified to the claimant that separate cases can be filed if so required against each department directly without impleading DCO as party and that the dispute with each department is to be explained in the said cases separately in accordance with law."
"10. Meanwhile the DCO is directed to continue further action on the complaints on the basis of the reports being submitted by attached departments so as to supervise positive improvements in the matters pointed out in the complaint."
"11. In accordance with above discussion, the complaint is hereby decided partly in favour of the claimant by asserting the orders being passed in foregoing paragraphs about direction to the DCO to continue further action on the complaints on the basis of the reports being submitted by attached departments so as to supervise positive improvements in the matters pointed out in the complaint and the direction about sanctioning of the mutation to the Tehsildar in accordance with the compromise based on affidavit Mark-PA between the parties of disputed Tamlik and the direction to the Chief Executive MEPCO Multan for separation of the localities of District Layyah from administrative control of District Muzaffargarh while the complaint alongwith all ancillary applications included in the file of the complaint is disposed off by way of return for filing separate cases about remaining complaints against each department, if so required to be filed."
6. I have observed that since the defendant is bound by the undertaking given in the proceedings of the previous complaint that the services of TMA would be gradually improved after recruitment of more staff and availability of funds as such the present complaint is maintainable in present form and the claimant is entitled being the consumer of the services of the TMA as tax payer to file the present complaint.
7. It is therefore proper to dispose off the present complaint with the direction that the municipal services should be improved and to be provided in proper manner so that no further complaint should arise and it is also directed that the extract of the previous audit reports about the funds consumed for the concerned locality should be submitted to the Registrar of this court for including in the file of the present complaint and the copies of the future audit reports should also be submitted to the Registrar of this court to ensure proper use of funds for the said locality in particular as sample for the proper use of funds for the whole Tehsil in general.
8. In accordance with above findings, the present complaint is partly accepted to the extent of the issuance of the directions contained in previous paragraph for implementation.
9. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the appeal is not preferred within period of 30 days under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 18 of PCP Rules 2009 in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
11. In case of delay in compliance, the claimant is entitled to get the order implemented by filing the application for implementation with reference to S.31, 32 & 36 of PCP Act, 2005, if so required with the warning to the defendant that the costs to be incurred for and during the application for implementation would be liable to be recovered from him and from his successors by attachment of half salaries.
12. The file of this complaint is directed to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.