The learned counsel for petitioner states that he has no instruction from the petitioner/department though he was informed through letter to appear before this Court in this case, but thereafter no one has established contact with him.
2. The dispute in this Constitutional petition relates to imposition of property tax by Cantonment Board on the building rented out by Auqaf Department for commercial purposes. According to the respondent such property is rot exempt from property tax. The Cantonment Board issued notice on 7th May, 1988, whereby Auqaf Department was directed to pay Rs.63,900 outstanding on account of property tax. This Constitutional petition has been directed against above said notice.
3. The matter was referred to Law Division on 30th September, 1987 to the effect that whether the property owned by Auqaf Department and being rented out for commercial purpose are exempt from payment of property tax or not. The Deputy Solicitor referred the matter to Law Division with the following observations: "The buildings rented out by the Auqaf Department for commercial purposes are not exempted from property tax as the said building in our opinion, do not fall under the category of buildings mentioned in clause (f) subsection (2) of section 99 of the Cantonments 14 Act, 1924. Such buildings are also not included in clause (a) subsection (2) of section 99 of the said Act. "
Thereafter, the matter was taken up by Joint Secretary, who referred the same to Secretary Justice Division. Note of Secretary is available as Annexure-D at page 17. Para. 12 of this Note reads as under:-- "I agree with the opinion of the Additional Secretary dated 30-9-1987 at para. 6 ante that buildings rented out by the Auqaf Department for commercial purposes are not exempt from property tax under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924. If the intention of the Legislature was that under section 99 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 buildings of Auqaf Department rented out for commercial purposes would also be exempt perhaps the language employed in the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 would have been used or the relevant provision in the Cantonments Act would have been that the properties owned or possessed by the Auqaf Department are exempt from property tax. "
4. In view of above discussion and since no one appeared to assist this Court on behalf of Auqaf Department, I, after hearing the learned counsel for respondent, am of the view that the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.