' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition No, 3993 of 1989 and . Writ Petition No, 1920 of 1990 involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. The facts in brief are that vide Notification No, DS(R) 5-2/87 Sheikhupura, dated 19-7-1987, published in the Punjab Gazette on 22-7-1987, the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of powers conferred on him under section 6 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, declared that for the purpose of next elections to the Local Councils in the Punjab and thereafter, the local limits of various Local Councils including Union Council, Bhainwala, be altered. According to item 2 of the Schedule to the Notification, Square No, 149, amongst other Khasra numbers of village Muridke was excluded from Union Council, Bhainwala, and included in the area of Municipal Committee, Muridke, as is apparent from the relevant extracts of the schedule which reads as follows:-- "DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA Sr. Name of Local No, Council. Area excluded VILLAGE MURIDKE
2. Union Council Bhainwala.
Changes in the Local Council area (with details of villages involved).
Area included in Municipal Committee Muridke 140, 141, 142, 143, 149."
It is specifically mentioned in sub-para. (i) of the notification that the Local Councils of Sheikhupura District mentioned in Column I of Schedule II shall stand substitute with their local limits mentioned against each in Column No, II of the said Schedule. Union Council Bhainwala one of the Local Councils, Sheikhupura District to the extent of Square No, 140, Khasras Nos.141, 142, 149 stood included in the local limits of Municipal Committee, Muridke. Since Local Council, Muridke has already been declared as rating area for the purpose of property tax by virtue of Notification No, Tax (E&T)3(55)/79-903 dated 15-7-1980 issued by the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department, therefore, the impugned assessm ent in respect thereof is intra vires. The plea raised by A the petitioner that the impugned notification issued under section 6 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 could not have been issued without issuing a notification under section 3 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 has no force in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Suffice it to say that section 3 of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 empowers the Government through a notification to specify urban areas where the tax shall be levied under the Act. Here the Government has already issued notification as back as in 1980, therefore, the impugned assessm ent is not open to challenge on the plea raised by the petitioner.
2. It is next contended that section 6 (5) no doubt empowers the Government by notification to extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits of local council or declare that any local council shall cease to be a local council with the consequences mentioned in the notification as well as those enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). Here no notification was issued by the Government under section 6(5) for extending or curtailing or otherwise altering limits of a Union Council, Bhainwala or Municipal Committee Muridke, therefore, the impugned notification dated 19-7-1987 was only for a limited purpose i,e, election to the local council in Punjab and not for the purpose of property tax.
3. When faced with this Mr. Muhammad Farooq Bedar, Additional Advocate-General argued that the notification was issued for the purpose of next election to the local councils in the Punjab and thereafter. His submission was that the word 'thereafter' does not refer to subsequent elections to the local council but is all embracing and is applicable in future for all intents and purposes.
Khawaja Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the word 'thereafter' is to be read ejusdem generis and it refers to next elections and the elections held thereafter.
4. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Pvt.), Limited v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department and others (Writ Petition No, 171 of 1988, decided on 12-1-1994: 1994 CLC 1060, in which the following view was taken by a learned Single Judge:-- 'Before dealing with the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it appears convenient to take up the remaining two arguments raised by them. So far as the inclusion of the area within the municipal limits is concerned, the notification issued in this behalf on 25-1-1987 is not open to any valid exception. Section 6 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 unmistakably vests power in the Government to alter the limits of Local Councils. The decision is purely administrative in nature and rests with the Government alone. This Court cannot in its Constitutional jurisdiction undertake an exercise to find out as to whether or not such a decision was justified on facts. Similarly, on its proper construction, notification dated 25-1-1987 shows that though it was issued keeping in view the elections to the Local Councils yet the alteration of limits was not only for that limited purpose nor was it transitional or temporary in nature. The use of word 'thereafter' in the notification is clearly indicative of the intention that even after the elections, the altered limits would remain in force."
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am not persuaded to take a different view.
' In view of the above, the writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.