FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.-- The petitioner calls in question the validity of the letter dated 18.6.1997 and notice dated 11.7.1997 by the Administrator Zila Council, Jhang and the District Collector, Jhang respectively issued to.The petitioner for the recovery of an amount of Rs.
32914600/-.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded a contract of lease for the collection of Goods Exit Tax of Zila Council, Jhang for the period from 1.8.1995 to 30.7.1997 in consideration of hid of Rs. 98000,000/. The petitioner deposited 1/10 of the hid money and advance instalments alongwith other dues. However, during the lease period a dispute arose between the petitioner/contractor and the Zila Council in respect of the said contract/lease. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division Faisalabad for arbitration. The Commissioner vide order dated 6.2.1996 remitted the entire case to the Administrator Zila Council Jhang to decide the issues involved in the matter. However, on a report by the Administrator, the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division took up the case and announced his award dated 14.7.1996 against the petitioner in view the decision of, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The commissioner adjudicated that the petitioner /contractor was bound by the terms and conditions of the lease. It was also found that by virtue of clause 22 of the agreement dated 1.8.1995 between the petitioner and Zila Council, Jhang it had been stipulated that the petitioner would receive a sum of RS. 0.50 per quintal from Daewoo Corporation and would refund the tax to the Corporation in case of-adverse decision of Supreme Court.
3. The petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 18161/96) against award dated 14.7.1996 made by the Commissioner, which was dismissed by order dated 20.2.1997 passed by this Court. The Intra Court Appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed on 3..3.1997 a declaratory civil suit, challenging the validity of the original agreement of lease dated 1.8.1995. The Administrator, Zila Council/District Collector, Jhang initiated impugned proceedings for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,29,14,600/- from the petitioner: The petitioner filed another civil suit .
On 14.7.1997 with an application for temporary injunction. The petitioner during the pendency of civil litigation rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the award had not been made a rule of the Court, the question of recovery of any amount in the implementation .Thereof did not arise. It was further contended that sub-rule (9) of rule 8 of the Punjab Local Councils (Lease) Rules, 1990 had no application in the presence of the Punjab Zila Councils (Export Tax) Rules, 1990. It was further submitted that the contractual amount in question could not he recovered from the petitioner by following a procedure laid down for recovery of arrears of land revenue. The learned counsel relied on the judgments in the cases of Haji Syed Habibullah and another v. The Municipal Committee, Quetta through the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Quetta and another (PLD 1977 Quetta 71), Municipal Committee, Daska v. MA. Farhat Nadeem & .Company Ex-contractor, Municipal Committee, Daska and 5 others. 1994 SCMR 1235) and Shaukat A.I v. Province of Punjab and 6 others (1997 CLC 529).
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this writ petition was not competent in a contractual matter. It was further submitted that the petitioner filed two civil Suits substantially in the same matter and one of the civil suit was still pending in the Court. It was contended that the petitioner had himself moved the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad by involving the arbitration clause and was bound by the award of the arbitrator. It was stated that the Lease Rules were attracted in the case of the petitioner as the Export Tax Rules were meant to govern the relationship between the tax payer and the Zila Council.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. I find that the petitioner himself had involved the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division Faisalabad by invoking the arbitration clause of the agreement. The petitioner could not turn round when the award was announced against him except by taking appropriate proceedings against the same in accordance with law. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court, which decision was maintained in the Intra-Court Appeal. The successive writ petitions by the petitioner were not competent. Rule 19 of the Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990 as well as the lease agreement stipulate that the decision of Commissioner would be final and binding on the parties.
Para 7 of the first schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 also specifically provides that the award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them. As such the effect of the award could not be just brushed aside merely on the ground that the same had not be made a rule of the Court. In the case of Satis Kumar and others v. Surindar Kumar and others (AIR 1970 SC 833), it was held that reference to the award that it was one thing to say that the right created could not be enforced without further steps. In his separate opinion Judge, said that arbitration proceedings were divided into two stages. The first stage commenced with arbitration and ended with the making of the award. The second stage related to the enforcement of the award. It was observed that an award announced by an Arbitrator could not be treated to be a waste paper , but the same was binding on the parties. In the case of Bhajahar Saha Bankiki v. Beharilal Basak (1909)
ILR 1933 Calkata 881) at page 898, it was held by Mookerjee, J. That the award was in fact a final adjudication of a Court of the parties' own choice and unless impeached upon sufficient grounds in an appropriate proceedings was conclusive upon the merits of controversy. It was laid down that an award possessed all the elements of vitality even though it, had not been formally enforced and could be relied upon in a litigation between the parties relating to the same subject-matter.
Similar view was taken in the case of M.S. Ramaish v. State of Mysore (AIR 1973 Mysore 17).
7. The Governor of the Punjab has made the following rules under the provisions of section 144 of the Ordinance read with section 167 of the Zila Council which are relevant for the purposes of the present cases:-
(i) The Punjab Local (Tax) Rules, 1980, (ii) the Punjab (Lease)
Rules, 1990 and (iii) Punjab Zila Council (Export Tax) Rules, 1990. All these rules are supplementary in nature and required harmonious construction so as to avoid any collision or conflict inter se. The Export Tax Rules, 1990 provide for the machinery and procedure for the collection of the Sport Tax, powers and duties of the lessee and the procedure for cancellation of the lease and arbitration in case of a dispute between the Zila Council and the lessee. The Taxation Rules, 1980 provide Machinery for empowering a local council including a Zila Council to provide for the mechanism for levy, assessm ent and recovery of the taxes. Rule 13 of the said Rules also enables the Taxation Officer to recover a tax as arrears of land revenue. Similarly, the Lease Rules, 1990 .Provide a 'detailed procedure for auction cancellation of the lease, legibility to participate in an auction for leasing out the collection rights of tax, fee, rate, toll or other charges levied by a, local council.
Needles to say that the local counsel, which includes Zila Council also means a local council constituted in terms of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. I therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that only the Export Tax Rules are relevant in the matters for leasing out the collection rights of the Export Tax.
8. Now the question arises as to whether the amount of Rs.
3,29,14,600/- as ascertained and determined being due from the petitioner can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Section 141 lays down that all arrears to taxes rents and other moneys payable to a Local Council under the Ordinance, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It is, therefore, clear that not only that the taxes and rents are recoverable but even other moneys payable to a local council under the Ordinance can also be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The learned counsel do not dispute the correctness of the amount being demanded the Zila Council for payment by the petitioner. The amount having been ascertained and determined and being not dispute has to be taken to be the amount due. I need not express any final opinion on the aspect as to the nature of the demand being made by the Zila Council. It seems that the petitioner being lessee and contractor of the Zila Council for the collection of Export Tax is not liable to pay any such tax. He has undertaken a statutory contract to collect the tax and to pay the Zila Council a fixed amount, which was not the amount of any tax levied or assessed for any goods exported by him. It was the consideration for the contract given to him by the Local Council. This sum, therefore, cannot be characterised as an arrear of tax. However, since the money is payable by the petitioner to the Zila Council the same can also be recovered as arrears of land revenue in terms of section 141 of the said Ordinance. Therefore, no exception can be taken. To the course adopted by the Zila Council, its Administrator or the District Collector, for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. The present cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner did not deal. With the question of the payability of the moneys, other than taxes' and rents as, arrears of land revenue. In the case of Municipal Committee Daska Supra the Supreme Court held that the right to collect taxes due from property would not make such payment "rent" and that there was no determination or adjudication of the amount which required accounting and was yet to he ascertained. Similarly, in the case of Shaukat A.I supra the arrears of salaries of the staff were held to be not .Taxes and rents which would not he recoverable as arrears of land revenue. The question as to whether the moneys other than taxes and rents being recoverable as arrears of land revenue was not considered in any of these judgments referred to by the learned .Counsel.
9. There is another aspect of the matter tor consideration. The petitioner had another alternate adequate remedy for the resolution of the controversies of fact provided by law in the presence whereof the present writ petition was not competent The question as to whether or not the petitioner signed the blank papers or after the written agreement had been executed is a question of fact, which need not be decided in these proceeding. The petitioner himself filed two civil suits over the subject-matter and' was, therefore, disentitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Reliance is placed on the cases of Al-Mahmood Industries (Pakistan) Ltd., v. The Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. And another (1974 SCMR 51), Mir Rasool Bus Khan Sundrani & Co.. v. Peoples's Municipality, Sukkur and 2 others (PLD 1975 Karachi 878), Abdul Karim v.
Additional Commissioner (R) Multan and others v. (1986 CLC 2403(2), Sahihzadi Nasima Begum v.
Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (1982 CLC 2181) and Ch. Muhammad Ismail v. Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 Others (PLD 1996 SC, 246). In any case the petitioner wants to side-track the real issue of his liability to make payment of arrears amount to the Zila Council by taking technical and fetish pleas. Equity also does not favour the petitioner.
10. For the foregoing reasons 1 do not find any merit in this petitions, which is dismissed. There shall he no order as to costs.