' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-Appellant is Punjab Co-operative Union and is owner of a multi- storeyed building, 5-Court Street, Lahore. For the year commencing on 1st July, 1980 the Assessing Authority, Lahore under the provisions of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, assessed its annual value at Rs, 11,99,670 on which a tax demand of Rs, 42,402.25 was raised against the appellant. The latter's objections against the assessment were turned down by the Assessing Authority. The appellant then represented to the Provincial Government that being a 'local authority its property was exempt under section 4 of the Act from levy of tax but this representation was rejected. An attempt to seek remission of tax under section 3 of the Act also failed when the request was declined by the Provincial Government through its Secretary. The appellant filed a Constitutional petition, Writ Petition No. 3773 of 1981 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 18th May, 1983. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that under section 4 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, tax is not leviable in respect of the following properties, namely :-
(ii) owned or administered by a local authority".
' It is submitted that the multi-storeyed building belonging to the appellant is owned by a 'local authority' because the appellant, Punjab Co-operative Union performs functions under the control and directions of the Government and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Its funds comprise of contributions by the Provincial Government and by the members. It performs functions in relation to the co-operative movement in the Province. Therefore, the appellant is a 'local authority' and its property exempt under the aforesaid provisions. It is secondly, contended that the appellant applied to the Provincial Government under the proviso to section 3 of the aforesaid Act which lays down that "Provided that Government may, by notification, remit for reasons to be recorded in whole or in part, the payment of the tax by any class of persons in respect of any category of property". The Provincial Government has, however, rejected the request on the ground that the appellant was not a 'local authority ; Learned counsel referred to The Managing Committee of Co- operative Model Town Society Ltd. v. Kh. Muhammad lqbal (1) to
(1) PLD 1963 SC 179 ' contend that the said Society was treated as a local authority and so it was held that a writ could be issued against it. Similarly, the appellant Union should have been treated as a local authority.
3. When a question was put to the learned counsel for the appellant that if the case of the appellant be that the appellant was entitled to exemption under section 4 of the Act and that having not been granted to him it could go in appeal or revision against the order of the Assessing Authority and that in that event against the order of the learned Single Judge, there will be no Intra-Court Appeal competent under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance (Ordinance II) of 1972 which lays down that if an order is appealable or revisable then against the order of learned Single Judge in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction no appeal would be available before a Division Bench, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant had also applied to the Provincial Government for remission of the tax under section 3 of the Act and against the refusal of the Provincial Government to remit the tax there is provided no appeal or revision and that being so, the present Intra-Court Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge will be competent.
4. The first point to be considered is as to what is the precise 'stand of the appellant. If appellant contends that it is a 'local authority', then it is entitled to exemption under section 4 and if that is not being granted to him, then it has a right to file an appeal or a revision under section 10 of the Act read with rule 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1958. That being so, the order of the learned Single Judge is not appealable before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that notwithstanding that the appellant's case is covered under section 4 of the aforesaid Act under which it was entitled to exemption nonetheless it had applied to the Provincial Government for remission of the tax under section 3 of the Act and since the Provincial Government had refused to remit the tax on the untenable ground that the appellant was not a 'local authority' and against the order of the Provincial Government, no appeal or revision has been provided for, therefore this appeal is competent. The question then to be determined is whether the appellant is a 'local authority'.
5. Learned counsel read out the bye-laws of the appellant and vehemently contended that the appellant falls within the category of a `local authority'. The definition of local authority under section 3 (28) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows :- "local authority" shall mean a municipal corporation, municipal committee, district board, body of port trustees or commissioners, or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a municipal or local fund."
' Learned counsel submits that the appellant is an "authority legally entitled to" ...... "the control or management of a local fund", and, therefore, it is a local authority. In fairness to him it must be stated that he referred to Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore (1) although to prove
(1) PLD 1976 Lab. 258 ' his contention but the judgment lays down as follows :- Local authority is invested with the control or management of a municipal or local fund. A municipal committee, district board and a body of port Commissioners are illustrations of the local authorities specifically included within the definition. A common feature in all these A is that they exercise powers of local self-Government invested in them over a local area within their limits. It exercises some of the powers and functions of local Government and is entrusted with the development and municipal administration of a local area within its jurisdiction. (Underlining is ours). Reference was made to a case in which National Bank of Pakistan was held out not to be a 'local authority'. From the observations quoted above it is quite clear that local authorities are municipal committees, district boards or other authorities which perform functions relating to Government at the local level. These bodies are of the kind of the Government in the general sense and not restrictive to executive Government, at the Provincial or the Federal level. What the Constitution does not assign to the Federal Government or the Provincial Government or allows the latter to do through local bodies for better management and administration of local affairs, the latter bodies are called 'local authorities'. As quoted in the aforesaid judgment from the National Bank of Pakistan case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had observed that: "The expression "Local Authority" has been used in statutory phraseology in the Indian sub- continent for a great many years, and is always understood to mean an authority which is entrusted with the administration of a local fund. Local authorities are bodies exercising within limited territories included in a Province, powers which belong to the Province, but which by statute are delegated to the local authority. A local authority is ordinarily charged with functions of self- Government and has power of making bye-laws, of imposing taxation, and of maintaining and administering local funds".
' It is common knowledge that in the subcontinent the first step towards the ultimate independence of the two nations was to establish local authorities allowing the local people to administer their affairs. When the then authorities thought that people could manage their affairs at local level, next step was taken to establish Provincial Governments in which to start with diarchy was established in 1921 allowing people elected to the Provincial Assemblies to exercise powers in relation to certain matters and leaving other matters to be administered by nominated persons. The next step, of course, was full-fledged Provincial Governments and provisions for a Federation. (Government of India Act, 1935). Finally, came The Indian Independence Act, 1947. From this it would be seen that a local authority partakes of a Government at the lowest level for purposes pertaining to local affairs not warranting treatment of administration at the Provincial or Federal Government level. In other words, it must have and exercise powers over people within a local area as if it is a Government for the people and the area and the purposes defined under the Act by which it has been created. By no stretch of imagination a Co-operative Union or any other body which deals with its own members or acts for its own purposes, can be deemed to be a local authority. These do not have the element of the Governmental structure [Here in italics] ' or function. The constituent and purposes of the appellant as stated in its bye-laws are really like those of domestic bodies performing service or rendering assistance to its own members or advancing its own aims. The case reported in The Managing Committee of Co-operative Model Town Society Ltd. v. Kh. Muhammad Iqbal relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and the question of law involved therein. Moreover, the position of the appellant Union is not like that of the Society in that case which clearly performs! Functions of municipal nature.
6. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed in limine.