' AJMAL MIAN, J.---The petitioners by these two petitions have impugned the recovery of Rawangi Mahsool on alleged molasses whereas the case of the respondent is that they are in fact exporting from the District Council limits sheera which is subject to levy of Rawangi Mahsool at the rate of 80 paisa for 40 k.g. Alongwith the above petitions the petitioners have filed the application for stay against the recovery. The above applications have been opposed by the learned counsel for the District Council as well as by the contractor.
2. Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the recovery is patently illegal inasmuch as that under the directive issued by the Provincial Government, the respondent District Council could ask for a security on the molasses which are to be exported to a foreign country. It has further been submitted that even the rate at which the recovery is made, is contrary to the model schedule provided for by the Provincial Government.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that factually the petitioners have been paying Rawangi Mahsool for the last number of years and inasmuch as the petitioners had filed earlier Constitutional Petition No,D-957 of 1983 which was withdrawn on 30-9- 1985 with permission to file fresh petition and since then no petition till the filing of the present petition has been filed. Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that no fresh petition was filed as the previous contractor has stopped the recovery. This statement is denied by the learned counsel for the respondents. Be that as it may, the question is what should be the interim order during the pendency of the above petitions. Mr. Khalid Ishaque appearing in Constitutional Petition No,D-1522 of 1987 has invited our attention to an order dated 22-12-1983 passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-956 of 1983 in respect of similar petition whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit an approximate sum with the Nazir of this Court with the proviso that the amount if exhausted, the same would be replenished by the petitioners. On the other hand Mr. Khalid Anwar has invited our attention to an order dated 14-5-1986 passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-968 of 1984 by a Division Bench of this Court in which originally the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs,2,50,000 and after the above amount was exhausted the respondent filed an application for a fresh direction for depositing the further amount and upon the above application it was ordered that instead of cash amount bank guarantee of Rs,2,50,000 was paid. Keeping in view the above orders, we pass the following order: (i)Each of the petitioners shall deposit Rs,2,00,000 cash within a period of 10 days with the Nazir and shall furnish a bank guarantee of Rs,2,00,000 upon adjustment of the above amount to the Nazir of this Court;
4. (ii) The cash amount to be deposited by the petitioners may be invested in Khas Deposit Certificates and the party who succeeds will be entitled to the profit thereon.
(iii) That in case the above cash amount and the bank guarantee stand exhausted it will be open to respondent to file fresh application for further orders.
(iv) Upon the fulfilment of the above conditions the petitioners shall be entitled to take out the goods from the District Council limits but the accounts are to be filed each month by the petitioners as well as by the respondents with the Nazir of this Court and the copy may be given to the other side.