' AMER HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through these proceedings, the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, whereby the learned Court has dismissed the writ petition affirming the orders of the District Co-ordination Officer Vehari.
2. The facts as they appear from the record are that the petitioner was awarded contract for collection of export tax for the year 1998-99, by the defunct Zilla Council Vehari. The respondent alongwith others filed claim. For refund of excess amount charged by the petitioner, which request was declined by the Taxation Officer. Zilla Council Vehari. It appears that the respondents approached the High Court in writ petition and the matter was decided by the High Court holding that the respondents may prefer appeal before the Chairman (Administrator) Zilla Council, who shall decide the appeal within 15 days from the date of its filing. The appeal was heard and by order dated 18.12.1999, it was allowed by the Administrator with the direction to the petitioner to pay the amount over charged by him from the respondents alongwith 11 times penalty. Against this order of the Administrator, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Executive District. Officer, Revenue, Vehari, which was. Dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the appeal was barred by time. The petitioner preferred further representation before the D.C.C., Vehari, which too was dismissed on 22.2.2004, upholding the orders of the E.D.O., Revenue. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, which was also dismissed, affirming the orders of the two authorities below.
The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the orders of the Secretary, Local Government, which too met the same fate, by the impugned judgment.
3. It is Contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Administrator, Zilla Council, has passed the order of refund of the amount without hearing the petitioner. According to him, notices issued to the petitioner were never served. He, therefore, contended that the matter be remanded to the Administrator with the direction to provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of -their stand to establish their claims and decide the matter afresh. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the law does not provide the imposition of penalty of 11 times. He submits that this fact has escaped the notice of the authorities below while passing the order of refund. He further submits that only actual amount of refund should have been ordered.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for the District Government, Vehari. Has contended that the petitioner was heard by the two appellate forums besides in revision by the Secretary. Local Government. He states that the orders have been passed on the basis of the record produced before the appellate and revisional forums and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if he was not heard by the Administrator. His next contention was that under the instructions of the Government, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Zilla Council, wherein, it was provided that in case. If the Zilla Council is satisfied that the petitioner has overcharged the export tax from any of the parties, he would be liable to penalty of 11 times of the amount overcharged by him. He, however, submits that under Rule 8(2) of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990, the authority on reaching the conclusion that the contractor has overcharged, could award 3 times penalty of such amount. According to the learned counsel, the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Zilla Council is binding on the. Petitioner and terms whereof could not be challenged by him.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. The petitioner has failed to produce any material to substantiate that the notices issued to him through registered post were never served upon him before the order was passed by the'
Administrator of the Zilla Council. The . Photocopies of the receipt issued by the postal authorities have been produced by the respondents, which, prima facie, show that the notices were issued under registered cover to the petitioner. In any event, the petitioner had availed the remedy of two appeals and one revision challenging the order of the Administrator. The petitioner was heard by both the appellate forum and revisional forum which had decided the issue of overcharging' against the petitioner. It is not a case Where ex parte decision has been taken, but in fact the petitioner availed the remedies upto the High Court. We, therefore, are not persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Administrator stood nullified for want of right of audience to the petitioner.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities were in error in awarding refund of amount with 11 times penalty has substance. Under Rule 8(2) (ibid) the law does not permit award of penalty for more than three times. No arrangement/agreement between the parties could override the language of a statute and or rule. We, therefore, are of the view that the penalty of 11 times awarded by the authorities below was improper and we while modifying the orders of the authorities below hold that the respondents are entitled to the amount calculated by the Administrator with 3 times penalty. The District Government, Vehari. Shall ensure that the amount is paid by the petitioner to the respondents in terms of order of the Administrator dated.
18.12.1999 in the aforesaid terms, within two months of the date of this judgment. The District Government shall invoke the provisions of law in order to recover the amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. These are the reasons for our short order dated 20.7.2012.