CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J. -- Brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No. 2 had levied tax on the following items under the provision of Punjab Local. Government Ordinance, 1979 and rules framed therein:- "Paddy Cotton, Yarn, Soda Water, Coal for manufacturing of bricks, wood waste for brick kiln, rice husk, bhoosa, wood and soda caustic."
2. Respondent No. 2 had decided to increase rate of tax on the afore-said items. Notice of public- at-large had been printed under the direction of Chairman of respondent No. 2. Contents of the notice reveal that meeting of respondent No. 2 was held on 19.5.1992 and decided to increase the taxes on the above mentioned items. Public notice was also notified for inviting the objections to the proposed rate of taxes with cut of rate that objections must be filed till 3.6.1992 for consideration of Subcommittee of Union Council constituted by respondent No. 2 in this behalf and the objections received after the cut of date would not be entertained. The sub-committee considered the objections and recommended the increase in rate through its report to respondent No. 2 qua the increase in the rate of taxes in the aforesaid items. On the basis of report of sub- committee, respondent No. 2 passed a resolution in its meeting held on 8.6.1992 for enhancement of taxes in the relation of 9 items which are mentioned in para No. 8 of the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 also sent letters to Manager Government Printing Press, Lahore for publication of notification u/s. 138 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 qua the enhancement of rate of afore- said items. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 enhanced the rate of taxes of said articles in violation of the mandatory provision of the Punjab, Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and rules framed therein. He further submits that respondent did not enhance the rate in the prescribed method under the rule i.e. Punjab Local Council Taxation Rules, 1980. He further urged that respondent No. 2 enhanced taxes in violation of rules 3 and 4. He further urged that action of respondent is not sustainable in the eye of law on well known principle, when a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that way and not otherwise. He summed-up his arguments that action of the respondent is in violation of law laid down by the Superior Courts. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:- "Mustahkam Cement Vs. Zila Council, Rawalpindi" 41992 CLC 1176), "ICI Pakistan Ltd. Vs. Zila Council, Jhelum" (1992 CLC 458), "Raja Muhammad Ramzan Vs. Zila Council, Attock" (PLD 1992 Lahore 324).
Learned Addl, Advocate General submits that writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has alternative remedy against the impugned action of the respondent. He further submits that .The petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as proposed taxes for enhancement of coal used by the petitioner as owner of the bricking has not been enhanced. He further urged that the respondent levied the taxes in question after completing all the legal formalities. He further submits that the petitioner relied upon judgment in Zila Council, Jhelum, which was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of /C/ Pakistan Ltd. Vs. Zila Council, Jhelum (1993 SCMR 454).
4. I have given my anxious considerations to the contention of the counsel for the parties and perused the record myself.
5. In case contents of writ petition and parawise comments are put in a juxta position then it brings the case of the petitioner in the area of a disputed question of fact and this Court has no jurisdiction to resolve the disputed question of facts in Constitutional jurisdiction as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others Vs. Government of NWFP through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others" (1993 SCMR 618). It is admitted fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy before the Deputy Commissioner concerned under the provision of Punjab Local Government Ordinance and rules framed therein, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the judgments:- NLR 1994 Tax (S.C.) 55 (Raja Mehmood's case), NLR 1994 Tax 53 (Raja Ramzan's case), 1993 MLD 32 (ICI Pakistan's case), , PLJ 1978 Lahore 253 in Kh. Abdul Waheed's case, PLD 1996 S.C. 246 in Muhammad Ismail's case.
The afore-said preposition was considered by my' learned brother the then Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J. In W.P. No. 4174/98 and laid down the following principle. "There is recent tendency to file Constitution petitions without exhausting remedies under the statute. This recent trend is dangerous., The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held in the case reported as Syed Sabir Shah and others Vs. Shah Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 S.C. 66), Collector Customs, Karachi Vs. New Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. And others (PLD 1994 S.C. 363), and Riffat Askari Vs. The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 285). The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable in facts and law.
Disposed of with the above mentioned observations. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.