' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above three petitions which are directed against interlocutory orders of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court passed in writ petitions filed by the petitioners, not granting any interim injunction restraining respondent No,3 i,e, Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh, and the contractor from realizing any property tax and/or octopi.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the above petitions are that the Commissioner, D.G. Khan, respondent No,2, in exercise of delegated powers under section 6(5) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, by a notification published in the official Gazette on 23-9-1992, extended the limits of the Municipal Committee, Muzaffargarh, which resulted in the inclusion of the petitioners' mills within the limits of the above Municipal Committee and thereby rendering them liable to pay property tax on the factories and to pay octroi on the goods. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid notification on various Constitutional/legal grounds. The High Corut found the above writ petitions fit for regular hearing and, therefore, admitted the same not granted any interim injunction on the petitioners' stay applications. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The above petitions had come up for hearing before this Court on 11-1-1995 when we ordered for the issuance of notice to the learned Advocate-General, Punjab, and to respondents Nos.1 and 3.
4. In response to the above notice, Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, learned Advocate-General Punjab, and Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,3 have appeared. Mr. Umar Ata Bandial, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in identical other writ petitions, the Lahore High Court has granted stay order on furnishing of bank guarantee. He has further submitted that there is a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Chaudhri Wire Rope Industries (Private) Limited v. Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department etc. (NLR 1994 Civil 569), wherein the contentions raised by the petitioners have been accepted, which judgment was not available when the present petitioners' stay applications were disposed of. Ch. Hamid-ud- Din, learned counsel for respondent No,3, has pointed o ut that M/s. Mahmood Textile Mills Limited, petitioner in C.P. No,1134/L of 1993, has filed a fresh writ petition in the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench and has obtained a stay order and, therefore, the present petition for leave cannot be prosecuted.
5. We are not going to decide any controversial issue, since we intend to decline leave in the above petitions with the observation that it will be open to the petitioners to file fresh stay applications before the Lahore High Court, which will be disposed of in accordance with law, it will be open to respondent No,3, Municipal Committee, to raise the above plea before the High Court. Leave is refused with the above observation.