Pakistan Case Law← Search
1993 MLD 32

I.C.I. PAKISTAN LTD., SODA ASH WORKS, KHEWRA, DISTRICT JHELUM vs ZILA

Citation1993 MLD 32
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W.P. 668 of 1992
Date1992-10-04
Judge(s)Gul Zarin Kiani
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. ' This petition in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenges levy and collection of excavation tax on the limestone etc. by the Zila Council, Chakwal. It was asserted that levy of above tax and its recovery from the petitioner was unauthorized and not warranted by the provisions in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, rules framed thereunder, and, the schedule. It was further asserted that the petitioner already paid export tax at Rs,50 per truck and additional liability could not be fastened upon them. It was also asserted that in absence of a formal notification in the official Gazette, Tax in dispute could not be recovered from the petitioner. Comments submitted by Zila Council defended the imposition of tax by them. It was stated that the notification regarding the tax was published in the official Gazette on August 12, 1992. Without availing of a remedy in appeal, under, Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, an objection to invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction was also taken.

2. ' Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. On behalf of the petitioner, it was vociferously contended that since the imposition was totally a void act, it was unnecessary to take recourse to the remedies provided under the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance, 1979, and the rules framed thereunder. Additionally, these remedies were neither adequate nor appropriate for preventing the petitioner from approaching this Court for darning relief in extraordinary jurisdiction.

3. As against this, it was argued on behalf of Zila Council that remedies provided in the Ordinance were equally efficacious, wherein relief was allowable to the petitioner. It may be observed that learned counsel for the petitioner referred to number of decided cases for pointing out the rule governing interference in writ jurisdiction by this Court, more particularly, in tax matters, where the levy of the tax was contended to be without authority. It was argued that when the act challenged was illegal and also without jurisdiction, the Court was bound to come forward and strike it down, without pushing the claimant-petitioner to the alternate remedies, which may or may not be appropriate depending upon facts and circumstances in each case. There was no cavil with the broad statement of law as to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court.. ~~Presence of an alternate remedy is not a bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution by this Court but it is certainly an important factor for regulating exercise of jurisdiction by it. Interference by the Court depended upon facts and circumstances of each case, seen in the context of an alternate remedy or remedies provided under the law and also the effectiveness of remedies and ease for availing of them in a given case. Observance of the rule regarding exhaustion of alternate remedies provided by law prior to taking of recourse to the special jurisdiction of this Court under the Constitution was both salutary and helpful. It avoided unnecessary over-congestion in the Court by allowing other functionaries to perform their full role in the fields allotted to them by law. It minimised delay and also avoidable expense. An impression that a direct approach to this Court on its Constitutional side led to a quick decision may not be altogether true. It was in this view that, exceptional cases apart, rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before embarking upon extraordinary jurisdiction was being pressed in aid and insisted upon.~~ In somewhat identical circumstances, similar view was expressed in Writ Petition No,194 of 1992 filed at this Bench. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Petitions for Leave to Appeal did not disapprove of the approach.

4. Rather, infused strength to it. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to another decision by the Supreme Court for a contrary view. Sufficie it to say that each case has its own parameters. ~~The judgment is an authority only for the point mooted and actually decided in it. Beyond that, it may not have a forceful application.~~ Short point arising for decision in the petition was about competence of Zila Council to levy the export tax on particular item. ~~I did not even for a moment feel that remedies provided in sections 156 and 157 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, or an appeal to an authority under the Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, were neither inadequate nor inappropriate. Government have supervisory control over the affairs and working of Local Councils. Any act contrary to Local Government Laws performed by Local Council could be scrutinised, in supervisory jurisdiction, for testing of its soundness and if found offensive could be struck down. In case of Zila Councils, powers under sections 156 and 157 of the Ordinance were delegated to the Divisional Commissioners. The act of delegation of powers did not exhaust the source power of the delegator. Despite delegation, the power to control and supervise the Local Councils resided in the Government. Power conferred upon and expressed in aforenoticed sections of law was all pervasive. Therefore, it shall not be right to assume that the Government shall readily condone the alleged illegal acts of the Local Councils poised against a private party. We are a democratic Society and governed by rule of law. It was not expected that Government shall act either unjustly or unfairly. Therefore, relying upon the effectiveness of alternate remedies provided in the Ordinance and trusting on their usefulness, the petitioner is left to pursue them first before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for an appropriate relief. It shall be open to the petitioner either to approach the Government itself or the delegatee for questioning the alleged illegal imposition of the tax by Zila Council, Chakwal. With these observations, interference is denied by this Co by leaving the petitioner to first pursue the alternate remedies indicated above.~~ . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 5 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search