MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The Constitution petition of the appellant challenging the notification dated 11-7-1994 issued by the Administrator, Town Committee, Chak Jhumra, through which rates of taxes of a number of items were increased, was dismissed through the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellant had alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under section 166 of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979, as also under section 156 to approach the Provincial Government.
2. Appeal rules framed under the Local Government Ordinance, 1979, of the year 1980, provide that an appeal would lie against the order of a local Council, its Chairman or any other officer, to the Deputy Commissioner. It has been argued on the strength of judgment reported as Muhammad Rafiq Gazdar v. A.C., Karachi (PLD 1972 Kar. 119) that Resolution of a Local Council cannot be equated with the legal status of an order as such the Resolution passed by a Local Council through which its proposals are sanctioned, was held to be not an order as envisaged under the said Rules for the purpose of filing appeal.
3. Apart from this we have noticed that in Punjab all the Local Bodies stood abolished as a consequence of which the Provincial Government appointed Administrators to perform the functions of the local bodies. The exercise of power by the Administrator on behalf of the Local Council in such matters which according to the Ordinance were to be performed through Resolution shall be deemed to be a Resolution of the Local Council and as such in our view under section 166 of the Local Council Ordinance, 1979, an appeal was not provided against the notification issued by the Administrator increasing the rates of taxes which could only be done through a Resolution. Of the Local Council and the Administrator shall be deemed to have exercised that power.
4. Remedy under section 156 of the Local Council Ordinance, 1979; cannot be held to be efficacious or adequate remedy as it is primarily the discretion of the Government to take action under the said section or not.
5. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment in the writ petition cannot be maintained. The writ petition was maintainable as there was no other efficacious and adequate remedy available to the petitioner in the writ petition against the impugned notification.
6. This appeal is accepted, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is set aside, with the result that the writ petition shall be deemed to be pending. Since it was still at motion stage, therefore, it shall be heard as a motion case and decided in accordance with law.
H.B.T./M-2646/L I. C. A. Accepted.