' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide the above petitions involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. These petitions have been directed against a common judgment dated 12-9-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which Constitutional petitions filed by the respondents challenging the legality of notification issued by the petitioners for levy of aquifer-fee on the tubewells installed by the writ petitioners in their premises have been accepted and the levy of the said fee declared illegal, against which leave is sought.
3. The relevant provision of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (XXX of 1975) as regards charging of aquifer-fee is section 29 as it stood before amendment which reads as under:-- "29. Fees on tubewells.---(1) The Authority shall have the exclusive right to use ground water resources within the area.
(2) The Authority may levy rates on private persons or private bodies who have installed or may install tubewells within its jurisdiction."
' It is manifest from subsection (2) that before amendment of this provision of the Act, the Lahore Development Authority was vested with the power to levy rates on all the private persons or private bodies who had installed or may install tubewells within its jurisdiction, but this subsection was amended through the Act No,XXX of 1975 and subsection (2) was substituted by following subsection (2):-- "(2) No person shall, without the permission of the Authority, install a tube-well at such places within the Area, as may be notified from time to time in the official Gazette by the Authority."
4. It is clear from a bare reading of substituted subsection (2) that instead of levying rates on the tubewells, it has been provided that only installation of tubewells without permission of the Lahore Development Authority has been prohibited therefore, there was no question of levy of rates through the notification impugned in the Constitutional petitions as such power no longer vested in the Lahore Development Authority therefore, the impugned judgment being in accordance with the provisions of the Act governing the subject does not suffer from any legal infirmity therefore, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.