1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---Request for adjournment has been received from Mr. Attaur Rehman on the ground that learned counsel is not feeling well. This petition and other connected petitions have been fixed together for hearing today as common questions are involved in the said petitions. Even otherwise it is nearly 1-30 p.m. And the Court time is nearly over. Therefore, it is not possible for us to hear these petitions. Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, learned counsel for the respondents and Mr. Abul Khair Ansari appearing on behalf of Collector of Customs have pointed out that in view of Article 199 (4- A) any stay against recovery of the amount involved in the case, granted by this Court would be valid for six months unless the case is earlier decided by the High Court or such order is earlier withdrawn by the Court. Sub-Article (4-A) provides as follows: "(4-A) An interim order made by a High Court on an application made to it to question the validity or legal effect of any order made, proceeding taken or act done by any authority or person, which has been made, taken or done or purports to have been made, taken or done under any law which is specified in Part I of the First Schedule or relates to, or is connected with, assessment or collection of public revenues shall cease to have effect on the expiration of period of six months following the day on which it is made, unless the case is finally decided, or the interim order is withdrawn, by the Court earlier."
2. There is, no doubt, that the stay granted in this petition and other connected petitions relates to the assessm ent of collection of public revenue and in view of the above provisions of the Constitution any stay granted in this regard ceases to have effect on the expiration of a period of six months. No doubt Sub-Article (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution provides that: "(4-B) Every case in which, on an application under clause (1), High Court has made an interim order shall be disposed of by the High Court on merits within six months for the day on which it is made, unless the High Court is prevented from doing so for sufficient cause to be recorded."
3. ' However, no further provision has been made in this regard, as to the consequences in case the provisions of Sub-Article (4-B) have not been followed or in other words, the case has not been disposed of within six months as provided by the said Sub-Article. In this regard it is pointed out that it is not possible for the High Court to dispose of every case within six months in which stay in respect of an assessm ent of collection of public revenues has been granted because of heavy pendency of work. However, the provisions of Sub-Article (4-A) clearly indicate that their operation is not subject to any other condition except those enumerated in the Sub-Article itself. In the present case and the connected cases it has been pointed out that in some of them the petitioners have submitted bank guarantees and in other cases stay was granted against deposit of the disputed amount with the Nazir of this Court. We are of the view that so far as this Court is concerned, it is not empowered to extend the stay for a period beyond that specified in Sub-Article (4-A). The mere fact that the case has not been disposed of within six months as envisaged by Sub-Article (4-B), in our opinion, in no manner can affect the operation of Sub-Article (4-A). We therefore, leave it to the respondents to give effect to the law after the legal position has been clarified by us in this order. In our opinion, there should be no obstacle in the way of the respondent to enforce Sub-Article (4-A) of Article 199 of the Constitution.