1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dated 7-7-1994 whereby two writ petitions filed by the petitioners to challenge levy of tax on excavation/quarrying, (Nikas) tax, and exit tax on stones imposed by Zila Council, Attock and Rawalpindi as un-Constitutional, were dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory remedy provided under Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Ordinance' only) before filing the petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
2. ' The relevant facts are that the petitioners instituted Writ Petition No,1149 of 1993 challenging the levy of excavation/quarrying, (Nikas) tax, and exit tax imposed by Zila Council, Attock and Rawalpindi. This petition was, however, dismissed by the High Court on 31-10-1993 on a statement made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would first like to exhaust the remedy provided under the statute and thereafter, if necessary, they will file the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal to the designated Authority under the statute which was dismissed by order dated 16-2-1994. Without availing further remedy of revision provided under the Ordinance, the petitioners instituted two Writ Petitions Nos. 190 of 1994 and 191 of 1994 challenging the validity of excavation/quarrying (Nikas) tax as well as exit tax levied by Zila Council Attock and Rawalpindi. A preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that the petitioners had not exhausted all the remedies provided under the statute which was upheld by the learned Judge in Chambers and consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as premature placing reliance on the case 'Wealth Tax Officer and another v. Shaukat Afzal and 4 others' (1993 SCM R 1810).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the above petitions, inter alia, contended that the remedy by way of revision provided under the statute was merely an illusory remedy in the circumstances of the present case as the power of revision has been conferred by the Government on the Commissioner who had earlier dealt with the appeal filed by the petitioners under the Ordinance, and therefore, the same authority was not expected to give a decision contrary to his earlier findings. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.