SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby Constitution petition filed by respondent No. l was dismissed in limine but part relief was given to it.
2. Respondent No. l is importer of parts and components of television in complete knock down condition for business of assembling and progressively manufacturing television sets from imported as well as locally manufactured parts and components. By notification dated 11-7-1982, issued by the petitioner, the parts and components of television sets imported by respondent No .l were assessed at 0.75 % of the value under Serial No.85 of the Octroi Schedule published in the Gazette of Sind Government, In the Sind Government Gazette dated 17-9-1992, the Municipal Commissioner, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, published notification wherein octroi duty under Serial No.85 was increased from .75 % to l .15 % and the duty under Serial No.92 was increased from 3 % to 4.50 % ad valorem. This notification was issued to give effect to the directions of the Government of Sind contained in Local Government, Housing, Town Planning and Rural Development, Notification NO.SO(Vl)/6-56/92, dated 5th August, 1992. On 10th May, 1993, the Municipal Commissioner issued a notification bearing No.550/GEN/OC. In the said notification, after Serial No.85, a new serial No.85(a) was inserted with the description/name of articles in Octroi Schedule 'A' as "TV, VCR, Cassettes, and parts thereof" and the octroi rate was shown as 4.5 % ad valorem. This notification was not published in the Gazette and was purported to have been issued under the directions of Government of Sind communicated to the petitioner under. Letter dated 31- 3-1993.
3. The dispute between the parties is in respect of period between 10-5-1993 (when the notification was issued) and 4-11-1993 (when the notification was gazetted). According to respondent No.1, the petitioner is not entitled to recover the duty for the period prior to the date of publication of notification in the official Gazette.
4. The High Court, while dismissing the Constitution petition of the respondent No. l observed as follows:-- "It may, however, be pointed out that since admittedly the notification was published in the official Gazette on 4-11-1993, it could not take effect prior to its publication. As has been provided by section 2(41) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act 'Notification' shall mean a notification 'published under proper authority in the official Gazette'. Therefore, if such tax has been charged from the petitioners before the publication of the notification in the official Gazette, the same would be liable to be refunded to them. However, after publication of the said notification in the official Gazette, the respondents would be within their right to charge octroi tax according to the amended schedule. "
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of subsection (2) of section 62 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), it is not necessary to publish the notification in the official Gazette and it shall take effect from the date it is notified and may be published later on. Section 62 of the Ordinance reads as follows:-- "62. Directions with regard to levy of tax. ;(l) Government may direct any council --
(a) to levy any tax, rate, toll or fee which the council is competent to levy under this Ordinance;
(b) to increase or reduce any rate, tax , toll or fee to such extent as may be specified.
(c) to suspend or abolish the levy of any tax, rate, toll or fee.
(2) If the direction is issued under subsection (1) the Chief Executive of the Council shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance, give effect to it by issuing a notification in terms of the direction not later than the date, if any, specified by Government in this behalf. "
6. By referring to subsection (2) of section 62 of the Ordinance, learned counsel contended that the word "notwithstanding" excludes the applicability of all provisions of the Ordinance which require publication of notification in the official Gazette. Under subsection (2), the direction issued by the Chief Executive of the Council has to be given effect to by issuing a notification and all such formalities which are required under the Ordinance, before such direction or similar action notifying rate in the schedule, have to be dispensed with. But the question is whether the order shall be enforced from the date of publication of notification or the date of order itself. The petitioner had made amendment in the octroi schedule which requires a particular procedure as prescribed but this is not relevant to the present controversy. It may be observed that subsection (2) of section 62 of the Ordinance, 1979 requires that ,the direction issued by the Chief Executive of the Council shall be given effect to by issuing a notification in terms of the direction which should be before or on the date which is specified in the direction.', Therefore, issuing of notification is a necessary condition for giving effect to the direction.
7. Now question arises "what is meant by 'notification'?". Section 2(41) of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act, 1956 (West Pakistan Act VI of 1956), defines 'notification' as follows:-- "'Notification' shall, mean a notification published under proper authority in the official Gazette. "
As the word "notification" has not been defined in the Ordinance, the definition given in the West Pakistan General Clauses Act shall be applied. It requires that any direction/order which is published under proper authority in the official Gazette is called a notification. Mere issuance of an order or direction will not g amount to a notification. Even if it is published in the newspaper's, affixed on the Notice Board or is published in any other manner, it shall not amount to a notification. Notification published in an official Gazette is a public document and carries certain presumptions of its legality and authority and its enforcement as well. Such attributes cannot be attached to an order or direction which is issued, notified or published without publication- in the official Gazette.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCM R 785) where question arose whether the notification issued earlier and published later will operate from the date of issuance or publication. This question arose in respect of Punjab Local Government Act, 1975 and section 222 of this Act was considered which provided:-- "(1) All bye-laws shall be made subject to the condition of previous publication.
(2) All rules and bye-laws shall be notified.
(3) --------------------------- (4)
It was observed that the "condition of previous publication in the official Gazette is confined to bye- laws only and not to the rules or any notification issued thereunder", and therefore, it was held that the delay in publication of notification will not invalidate or otherwise make its operation retrospective from any date prior to the date it was actually signed though not published in the official Gazette. Learned Judges were considering the provisions of section 222(1) and (2) of the Punjab Local Government Act reproduced above. Subsection (1) clearly provides that publication of bye-laws is a condition precedent for its enforcement, while subsection (2) provides that all rules and bye-laws shall be notified. It was in view of this particular wording that only bye-laws were to publication in the Gazette, while no such condition was imposed for rules which were to be notified.
This clearly shows that although rules and bye-laws were to be notified, yet distinction was drawn by reading subsections (1) and (2) together that bye-laws shall be made subject to previous publication whereas no such condition was attached to the rules. In subsection (2) of section 62 of the Ordinance, it is provided that direction of the Chief Executive of the Council shall be given effect to by issuing a notification. It means that unless a notification is issued, the direction of the Chief Executive of the Council cannot be given effect to. As discussed above, a 'notification' means issuance of the same in an official Gazette. Therefore, it imports publication in the official Gazette and not that the order should benotified by the relevant Authority in the press or by affixing it on a notice board.
9. The terms. 'notification' and 'notified' convey completely different meaning. The 'notification' as discussed above is issued by publication under a proper authority in the official Gazette. While the term 'notify' means to give notice, proclaim or publish in any recognized manner. Ball,entine's Law Dictionary defines it as: "Notified. Having been given notice.
In legal proceedings and in respect to public matters, the word is generally if not universally used as importing a notice given by some person whose duty it was to give it, in some manner prescribed, and to some person entitled to receive it."
According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 'notify' means: "to take note of, observe; to make known, publish, proclaim; to announce; to indicate, denote, to give notice to; to inform. "
From the literal meaning of the term 'notify' and the meaning as understood in legal proceedings and public matters, it means to convey information in a manner which ensures that the person sought to be notified shall receive it. The method of conveyance of information, order or notice may be by post, publication, public proclamation or announcement, direct service on the address effected personally on him by the person issuing it or his authorised representative, or any other recognised or customary mode of service. In view of this discussion, the judgment relied upon is completely distinguishable.
10. Learned counsel has referred to Market Committee, Khudian through its Administrator v. Town Committee, Khudian through its Chairman (1992 SCM R 14031 in which the principles stated in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCM R 785) were reiterated and relied upon In this judgment, the notification challenged related to an amendment in the rules which was to be notified and not required to be published in an official Gazette. This judgment, therefore, does not advance the case of the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the notification published in the Government of Sind Gazette, dated 17-9-1992 which was sought to be amended by the direction of the Chief Executive which though notified was not gazetted. It, therefore, seems clear that all directions/orders/decisions made by Chief Executive are published in official Gazette. The publication is made in order to notify the public about the octroi rate and to provide an-authentic document for their use. If the rate fixed has been notified in the official Gazette, will it be proper that any amendment made therein should not be notified in the same manner by publication in the official Gazette and should be done by issuing notice or pasting it on the notice board. Such procedure cannot, unless specifically provided by a statute, be adopted by amending a notification which had been published in the official Gazette.
12. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.