' A contract for collection of tax on transfer of immovable property was granted to the petitioner for the year, 1998-99 i,e, 1-10-1998 to 30-6-1999 for an amount of Rs,81 lacs. Notice, dated 8-10-1998 was issued to the petitioner as to the acceptance of his bid as also for deposit of certain amounts.
Formal agreement was thereafter executed between the petitioner and District Council, Pakpattan Sharif on 16-10-1998. The petitioner has since then been collecting tax as per agreement.
2. This petition was filed on 28-4-1999 with prayer that:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that action of the respondents in claiming extra amount regarding the period w,e,f, 1-10-1998 to 15-10-1998 (15 days) during which period petitioners were not handed over the charge to recover the tax in question, may be declared as illegal, unconstitutional, void, ultra vires and respondents may be directed not to claim the lease money from the petitioner for the said period and amount already paid by the petitioner may be adjusted towards payment of lease money proportionately and the extra amount may be directed to be refunded."
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be asked to pay for the period during which he has not made any collection of the tax. He relies on orders passed in Writ Petition No,13419 of 1995 and Writ Petition No, 14075 of 1995 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents has submitted that in the conditions of auction as well as in the agreement there is a specific clause for reference of any dispute between the parties to arbitration. Clause 24 of the agreement has been referred for this purpose. He relies on Mmitaz Ahmed v. Zila Council, Sahiwal through Administrator ,and others 1999 SCM R 117 in support of his contentions that writ petition in such an eventuality is not competent as the petitioner has an adequate remedy as agreed to by him per agreement. It is also contended that the rights and liabilities of the parties are determinable as per terms agreed by the parties and the petitioner can neither back out from the same nor seek avoidance of liabilities through this petition.
5. The execution of agreement, dated 16-10-1998 is admitted on both sides. Right to collect the tax by the petitioner flows from the'said agreement. It is simply a bilateral agreement entered into by the parties of their own free will and volition. Remedy and forum for resolution of disputes arising therefrom has been provided for the said agreement. Clause 24 of the agreement leaves no manner of doubt whatsoever, that the parties had agreed for arbitral mode for the resolution of the disputes. Having agreed for arbitration, the petitioner is bound by the terms of Clause 24 of the agreement. He has accordingly an adequate remedy available to him for the redressal of his grievance.
6. Mumtaz Ahmed's case (supra) which arose in somewhat identical circumstances also lays down that the petitioner could have invoked arbitration clause and referred the matter to arbitrator and could not have invoked writ jurisdiction in the matter. It may be noted that one of the petitions, decided by the Honourable Supreme Court, relates to District Council Pakpattan Sharif. In view of the precedent case, reliance on order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No,13419 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,14075 of 1995 is misplaced. Before the learned Judge of this Court, neither the question of arbitration clause between the parties was raised nor considered, therefore, it cannot be treated as a precedent in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. For the reason, that the petition is not maintainable in view, of the arbitration clause in the agreement, and that writ jurisdiction is not meant to enforce/avoid contractual obligations, I have avoided to make any comment on the merits of the case, so that, the forum seized of the dispute may decide the same uninfluenced by any observation of this Court.
' As a result of the above, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs.