1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C. J.-The petitioner, Abdul Razaq Khan, resides within the local limits of Tando Allahyar Municipal Area, and he obtained a contract from the Administrator of the People's Municipality, Tando Allahyar, for the collection of Octroi. It is stated that the formalities, attending the obtaining of the contract, were complied with, and the petitioner had to pay a sum Rs, 8,10,C00 to the said Administrator of the People's Municipality at Tando Allahyar, who, for the sake of convenience, is, hereinafter, referred to as the "Municipality".
2. ' On 17-9-1975, the Government of Sind in the Department of Housing, Town Planning and Local Government, issued a notification, the opening paragraph whereof reads as follows :- "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 74 (1) (b) of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972, Government of Sind are pleased to further revise the rates of Octroi on the following items for the People's Municipality, Tando Allahyar with effect from the date of issue of this notification."
3. ' The above-quoted paragraph was followed by a list, showing the names of the articles in respect of which the rates of payment of octroi had been revised. On 30-9-1975, the Municipality issued a notice to the petitioner, stating as follows :- "Copy of Revised Octroi schedule of some items issued by the Government of Sind is enclosed herewith for your information and compliance immediately.
4. ' Further please you note that no rebate of whatsoever kind will be allowed to you according to the terms of agreement.
5. In case of non-compliance contract will be cancelled and re-auctioned as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and the Government of Sind."
6. ' The grievance of the petitioner is that, by the notification issued by the Government of Sind, and the consequent order of the Municipality, the rates of octroi had been reduced, and thereby loss has been caused to the petitioner.
7. ' On such facts, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs :- "(1) Declare that the impugned notification, dated 17-9-1975 and the consequent letters, dated 17- 9-1975 and 30-9-1975 issued by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and directions of the respondent No, 3 for compliance with the said notification are withont any lawful authority and are of no legal effect.
8. (2)Permanently restrain the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from interfering with the petitioner's right to recover octroi duty as per octroi Schedule appended to the notification of 16-6-1975.
9. (3)Such further orders and directions as the Hon'ble Court deems fit as to abatement of contract amount due to reduction in the Octroi duty may be passed as the Hon'ble Court deems fit in case it is found that the notification, dated 17-9-1975 has been issued in accordance with the law.
10. (4)Costs of the petition may also be allowed to the petitioner.
11. (5)Any other relief or reliefs which the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may also be granted."
12. ' The main contentions of the petitioner is that the notification, issued by the Government of Sind, on 17th September 1975, was invalid and of no legal effect, because the said notification did not comply with, or, was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated by section 74 of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be profitable to reproduce section 74 of the said Ordinance. It reads as follows :- "74. Directions with regard to levy of tax etc.-(1) Government may direct any council- (a)to levy and tax, rate, toll or fee which the council is competent to levy under section 71 ; (b)to increase to reduce any such tax, rate, toll or fee, or the assessment thereof, to such extent as may be specified ; or
(c) to suspend or abolish the levy of any such tax, rate, toll or fee.
(2) Government may where it thinks fit by order direct that the proceeds of all of any of the taxes, tolls, rates or fees collected by a council shall be distributed among and allocated to such other councils in the district in such manner and proportion as may be prescribed by such order.
13. (3)If a direction issued under subsections (1) and (2) is not complied with, within the specified time, if any, Government may make an order giving effect to the direction."
14. ' The contention of Mr. K. A. Wahab is that the scheme to section 74 disclosed that the Government could direct a Local Council to increase, or, reduce some tax, or, fee to the extent as may be specified by the Government, and, if such a direction is not complied with by the council within a specified time, the Government could mike an order, giving effect to the direction. In short, the contention is that, before the Government passes an order for increase, or, reduction of the tax, or, fee an opportunity has to be given to the Local Body to comply with the direction. It is contended that the Government, in the instant case, did not give a direction as contemplated by subsection
(1) of section 74, but has straightaway revised the rates of octroi. No doubt, the notification, dated 17th September, 1975 does use the words "Government of Sind are pleased to further revise the rates of octroi", but we cannot overlook the letter of the Municipality, dated 30-9-1975, which states that the Municipality was following what the Government had directed, and, in order to comply with the order, or, direction of the Government, a copy of the octroi schedule was sent to the petitioner, and he was told that, in future, the rates shall be charged in accordance with the direction of the Government. Earlier to this letter, dated 30-9-1975, a Section Officer in the Local Government Department had written to the Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, stating that the Government had reduced the rates of octroi, and the contractor may be directed to comply with the directions of the Government for reduction as, otherwise, the contract for the remaining period may be cancelled. On an appraisal of the several documents, we are of the view that the terms of section 74 of the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance have been substantially complied with, because the effective order, issued to the petitioner, has been made by the Municipality, and not by the Government. This circumstance would show that the direction of the Government was complied with by the Municipality, and the Municipality had directed the collection of octroi at the rates which the Government had fixed. The learned Advocate has invited our attention to a counter-affidavit filed by Mr. Ahmed Khan Temuri, a Section Officer in the Local Government. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated as follows :- "5. That as the residents of area concerned were suffering heavily, the respondent No, 1 could not wait for issuing directions under section 74 (1), which directions I am advised to say, the Municipality concerned was bound to give effect to."
15. ' On the basis of such statement in the counter-affidavit, Mr. K. A. Wahab stated that the order was passed by the Government, and not by the Municipality, but we cannot agree with him even on this contention, because the word, that is used in paragraph 5, is "direction". This word is the same as would appear in the opening subsection of section 75. The Jeliberate use of this word would indicate that Mr. Ahmad Khan Temuri wants to convey that the Government had issued directions to the Municipality. It would, therefore, appear that there was substantial compliance with the procedure and modalities laid down by section 74 of the said Ordinance.
16. There are few other aspects of the case, which cannot be overlooked. The petitioner had entered into a contract with the Municipality. Paragraph 27 binds the petitioner to obey all orders passed by the Municipality. Paragraph 28, which is more specific in the context, clearly states that, in case of any dispute in regard to octroi schedule, the decision will be given by the C Administrator of the Municipality, and such decision shall be final. Further, it is stated that, in case of reduction in the rates of octroi, the petitioner shall not be entitled to the difference between the existing octroi rates and the new rates. The contents of this contract would clearly debar the petitioner from seeking any relief.
17. ' Coming to the relief, that is claimed by the petitioner, we cannot grant him an order to restrain the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's rights to recover octroi duty as per the old schedule. The period of contract has expired, and a new contractor is now collecting the octroi.
18. Such new contractor is not even a party in this petition, and we cannot pass any order adverse to his rights without hearing him. What is more that it is stated by Mr. K. A. Wahab at the Bar that, for the period of contract, which the petitioner had obtained, he had indeed collected the octroi tax.
19. This would show that his only grievance now is in regard to the difference that arose as a consequence of the reduction of rates. There is no means, whereby this Court can find out such difference and order compensation. Nor has any such relief been claimed. Relief of such nature is hardly ever granted by the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, for the simple reason that it would involve processes of accounting and arithmetic, which this Court will be very reluctant to undertake in these proceedings. In any case, the petitioner has, or, had a remedy available in the civil Court for recovery, and if he is so advised, he could avail of such remedy. The relief of declaration also cannot be granted to the petitioner at this juncture, because he has no existing right. He had obtained the contract just for one year, and that one year has expired, and, during that period, he did collect the octroi, although at lower rates. The points, once again, recoil to the recovery of the difference which, as stated above, cannot be allowed in favour of the petitioner in these proceedings.
20. ' For the above reasons, we see no force in this petition, which we dismiss, but with order as to costs.