1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ---These petitions have arisen out of the refusal by the High Court to entertain Constitutional (Writ) Petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution on the ground that adequate alternate remedy is provided by law governing the case and same not having been exhausted the writ petitions do not lie.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that section 156 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 does not provide remedy in so far as the levy of impugned tax is concerned. He has also contended that the Provincial Government had by a Circular Letter prohibited the Union Council from levying the impugned tax.
3. ' Learned counsel for the caveator has in addition to section 166 relied on sections 139, 156 and 173 which, according to him, furnish enough alternative remedies which are all adequate, therefore, without exhausting the relevant remedies the writ petition could not be entertained.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in facts and circumstances of this case those provisions are not attracted. We do not agree with him. The questions of fact which were agitated before the High Court including the question, whether, the tax in question in reality is not a market A fee as asserted from the respondents side could more properly and easily be debated and agitated before the functionaries mentioned in above-referred provisions (and even the remedy by way of suit in the circumstances can be filed particularly in cases involving the disputed question of fact) can be better agitated before a forum which can easily record evidence. Learned counsel for the repondent also cited Messrs Punjab Feeds Ltd. v. Abdul Ghafoor 1990 SCMR 439(2), to show that the provisions contained in the Ordinance provide sufficient adequate alternative remedy which is normally followed in such like cases. In so far as the judgment relied upon goes it does show that a similar case has gone before the Commissioner prior to the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. In the light of the foreging discussion the impugned judgment being E unexceptionable, we find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, therefore is refused.