' MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order, dated 22- 8-1996 passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-523 of 1996 by High Court of Sindh, Karachi.
2. Petitioner a multinational company has established with sophisticated technology a chemical factory at Jamshoro. It appears that pursuant upon certain arrangement while inviting tenders for recovery of octroi-tax through public advertisements, the Union Council had been expressly excluded the petitioner from the recovery of octroi-tax by the Contractor. Documents on record.
However, suggest, that at different occasions separate agreement showing fixed amount of octroi payable to Union Council, Jamshoro, were executed between the petitioner and said Union Council.
3. It is the case of petitioner that respondent No,3 (Union Council, Jamshoro with express sanction of Provincial Government Sindh executed an agreement with petitioner regarding payment of fixed octroi-tax for the period commencing from 1st July, 1995 to 30th June, 1996.
4. It may be seen that respondent No, 1 (Muhammad Hashim Zardari) claiming to be Octroi Contractor towards 12-8-1995 submitted an application to Secretary. Local Government of Sindh for holding open auction in respect of octroi-tax payable by the petitioner to respondent No,3 (Union Council, Jamshoro). He also made an offer of Rs,15,00,000 (Rupees fifteen lacs) for granting him right to recover octroi from petitioner during ensuing years of 1995 and 1996.
5. Record reflects that on 28-3-1996 Administrator, Union Council, Jamshoro, awarded the contract for recovery of octroi from petitioner (M/s. Sandoz (Pakistan) Limited) with effect from 1st April, 1998, to respondent Muhammad Hashim Zardari. The Petitioner aggrieved from cancellation of agreement concerning fixed octroi represented before high authorities, whereupon implementation of aforementioned arrangement of awarding collection rights of octroi-tax from petitioner vide letter, dated 28th March, 1996 was suspended by Secretary, Local Government of Sindh by means of Letter No,SOIV/16(38) of 1995 UC Jamshoro, dated 3rd April, 1996.
6. Respondent herein namely Muhammad Hashim Zardari challenged aforementioned letter, dated 3-4-1996 which had affected his right of recovering octroi from petitioner, before High Court of Sindh through Constitutional Petition No,D-523 of 1996. During pendency of above petition with consent following interim order was passed on 18-4-1996:-- "As Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari requests for time to file counter-affidavit, by consent the case is adjourned to 24-4-1996.
' It is further ordered, by consent, that no octroi would be charged by the petitioner from the Intervenor. Sandoz Limited, provided the said intervenor deposits a sum of Rs,5,00,000 (five lacs) whitin three days with the Nazir of this Court by way of security. It is furtl1er ordered by consent, that an account will be kept of the goods of the intervenor, which may be subject to the payment of the Octroi.
' As Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned counsel for the intervenor, has undertaken that the said amount would be deposited in the Court as just ordered, this order may be made effective from today.
Therefore, by consent, it is ordered accordingly."
7. Later while considering another Miscellaneous Application No,2979 of 1996 High Court directed the petitioner herein, to deposit an amount of Rs,1,27,22,797 (Rupees one crore twenty-seven lacs, twenty-two thousand, seven hundred ninety-seven only), which has now been assailed in present petition for leave to appeal. Operative portion is reproduced hereunder:- "After considering the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties although it is not possible for us to determine what is the exact amount payable by the respondent No,3 to the petitioner or the respondent No,2, on account of octroi, but the claim put forward by the petitioner indicates that a huge amount is due from the respondent No,3 to the petitioner or the respondent No,2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No,2 does not appear to be unreasonable that the interest of the said respondents must be properly secured before the respondent No,3 is allowed any concession by this Court, in pursuance of the order passed by it dated 18-4-1996. Consequently, we direct the respondent No,3 to deposit an amount of Rs,1,27,22,797 in this Court, payment of which would be subject to the final decision that may be taken in this petition. The said amount may be deposited within two weeks from today. The amount shall be invested in profit bearing securities by the Nazir. In case of failure by the respondent No,3 to deposit the said amount, the concession enjoyed by the respondent No,3 in pursuance of the order, dated 18-4-1996 or any other order passed subsequently shall cease to be operative. By consent the petition shall be fixed for regular hearing after three weeks."
8. M/s. Fazal-e-Ghani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for petitioner, and M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1 (Muhammad Hashim) have addressed the arguments. It transpired that respondent No,1 for recovery of octroi tax pertaining to year 1996-97 from the petitioner has executed fresh agreement and such arrangement is continuing. Without entering into factual controversy we feel that following question of considerable importance arise for consideration:--
(i) Whether during the subsistence of agreement for recovering fixed octroi tax from the petitioner, could Provincial Government or Administrator, Union Council, Jamshoro, unilaterally cancel the same or award contract for recovering any part of such octroi to respondent Muhammad Hshim Zardari?
(ii) Whether Union Council. Jamshoro after contracting with petitioner for fixed amount of octroi tax recoverable in respect of period commencing from 1-7-1995 till 30-6-1996; could retrospectively raise the demand or without notice grant right of recovering octroi tax at enhanced rates for the remaining period or a portion thereof or entire period for which octroi tax was already received by any other person?
(iii) Whether respondent Muhammad Hashim Zardari has many legitimate right to claim/recover Rs,1,27,22,797 from petitioner herein; or High Court of Sindh in the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction without striking down letter, dated 4th April, 1996 issued by Secretary, Local Government had lawful authority of directing the petitioner to deposit aforesaid amount?
(iv) What were the basis of calculating octroi tax and its liabilities as mentioned in the impugned order, specially when evidence was not yet . Adduced.?
9. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal to thoroughly examine, inter alia above aspects.
10. We may observe, that High Court of Sindh while passing impugned order; with consent had directed to fix regular hearing of the petition within three weeks. Surprisingly despite expiry of two years matter has not been finally disposed of. It would be just and proper if the High Court ensures expeditious disposal of main Constitution Petition.
11. The stay order passed on 1-9-1996, shall, however, remain operative till final disposal of appeal.
Leave to .