' NAIMUDDIN, J.-The case of the petitioner as stated in the petition is that it had imported a ship registered as m.v. ARAB DRILL-2 under an import licence issued by the Government of Pakistan. The vessel was brought into the waters of the Karachi Port Trust and berthed at the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works for the purposes of dismantling and breaking.
2. The Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, respondent No, 2 demanded the production, of a copy of the Bill of Entry together with receipt showing that octroi has been deposited with the Octroi Sea Dues Office of respondent No, 2, so that the trucks loaded with the ship scrap be allowed to be brought into the Metropolitan Corporation limits unhindered.
3. Thereupon the petitioner approached the Superintendent Octroi-II of respondent No, 2 who demanded octroi at the rate of 3% ad valorem of the duty paid value of the ship amounting to Rs,1,80,072.
4. The petitioner has questioned this demand as being without lawful authority by contending that the ship is berthed in waters and not within the territorial limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and what it brought within the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation is the scrap after dismantling the ship for which the petitioner is liable to pay octroi at the rate provided in the Schedule 'B' which relates to levy of Octroi on imports into the limits of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation through land routes as according to the petitioner only scrap is being imported into the limits.
5. However, it is the petitioner's own case in paragraph 4 of the Petition that the ship is berthed at the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works for the purposes of dismantling and breaking.
Respondent No, 2 in reply to paragraph 4 of the petition in its counter-affidavit has taken the stand that the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works is situated within the territorial limits of respondent. No, 2 and, therefore, the ship berthed at the Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works for dismantling purposes is liable to payment of Octroi on ad valorem basis in pursuance of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII-A of Octroi Rules, 1964. Respondent No, 2 has annexed a photo stat copy of the map of the Karachi Shipyard wherein the place where the ship is berthed is marked. This map is described as authentic and official map. In this map the place used as the Karachi Shipyard is not originally marked as such but by a writing over written the area is described as 'shipyard area' and it is claimed that the place marked as such is the Karachi Shipyard area and the same is within the boundaries of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Explanation 2, contained in the Notification dated 11-10-1960, which contains the Schedule of the area of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation in support of the contention that the Karachi Shipyard Area is excluded from its limits. The explanation reads: "2. The area within the Harbour of Karachi and the West back-water below High Water mark and the East back-water also below high water marked on the South and West of Bunder Head Station and within pillars Nos. 1 to 29 from the South East corner near the Railway (Keamari Loop Line)
Embankment near Clifton Beach is excluded from, but the island of She spire, Bab and Bhit and all the lands vertically above high water mark are included in the Karachi Municipality."
7. The question whether according to explanation the area where the ship is berthed is within the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation or not cannot be ascertained simplicity with reference to description of the boundaries given in the Explanation 2 reproduced herein before.
Thus, the question whether the ship is berthed within the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation cannot be determined without first taking evidence. We are not inclined to do so in this proceeding as alternate remedy by way of appeal was available to the petitioner.
8. A similar question arose in Sher shah Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Sind and 4 others PLD 1982 Kar. 653 and a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:- "17. The first contention on merits raised by Messrs Tariq Hussain and Haidermota, which was adopted by other counsel for the petitioners, was that the vessels in question were never imported within the Octroi limits of K.M.C. As observed earlier, in some cases the petitioners have taken the factual stand that their vessels remained at the outer anchorage and in some cases it was alleged that the vessels had gone directly to Gadani. It was contended that in none of the cases the vessel entered the K.M.C. Octroi limits. On behalf of the K.M.C. These factual assertions were denied. The K.M.C. Has taken the position that the vessels in question had come within their Octroi limits and then they were taken to Gadani for scrapping. All the counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel for the K.M.C. Had relied upon the Notification, dated 11-10-1960 of the Government of Pakistan regarding the extent of K.M.C. Limits and map had also been produced in Court on behalf of K.M.C. (not kept on the file) on which, according to the K.M.C. The limits of the K.M.C. Were shown in accordance with the Notification dated 11-10-1960 as regards the areas covered by sea waters, In the face of the serious disputes on facts about the exact Octroi limits of K.M.C. And whether the vessels had at all entered the K.M.C. Octroi limits or not, and on account of hardly any evidence on record to be in a position to decide with certainty these two questions of fact, we do not consider it appropriate in these constitutional petitions to decide these questions. In any case, without recording evidence, which may include expert evidence for reading and understanding the Notification, dated 11-10-1960, about the K.M.C. Limits these questions cannot be decided. The proper forum before whom such evidence could be recorded is the appellate authority under rules 48 and 216 of the 1964 Octroi Rules."
9. The learned Advocate has made an application to issue notice to the Survey of Pakistan calling them to produce an authentic map illustrating the Karachi Port Trust area and Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works area and whether they fall within the boundaries of the Karachi Port Trust or the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation but this will again require recording of evidence which we are not inclined to grant and accordingly dismiss it.
10. Since the question raised before us is one of disputed facts and since we are not inclined to record evidence to settle the same we must dismiss this application more so when alternate remedy by way of appeal was available to the petitioner. We, therefore, dismiss this petition with no order as to costs.