'MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide the titled petitions involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. These petitions are directed against the common judgment dated 12-9-2002 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners through which the same have been partly dismissed qua levy of sewerage fee.
3. The power of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) regarding raising of funds and levy of fees, etc. Is governed by section 28 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 which is reproduced below in extenso for facility of ready reference:-- "28. Rates and fees.---(1) With the previous consent of the Government adequate funds may be raised by the Authority from time to time to meet the costs of its schemes by imposing rates, fees and other charges.
(2) The rates, fees and other charges shall be such as to provide sufficient revenues--
(i) to cover the operating expenses including taxes, if any, an interest to provide adequate maintenance and depreciation;
(ii) to meet repayments on long term indebtedness to the extent that such repayments exceed the provisions of depreciation;
(iii) to finance the normal year to year extension of any of such schemes and to provide a reasonable portion of the cost of future major expansion of such schemes."
4. This section was subsequently amended by Act XXX of 1975 which provided that after the words "other charges" and before the word "shall", the words "for water supply, sewerage and drainage schemes" shall be inserted.
5. It is clear from bare reading of this provision of the Act after amendment that for water supply, sewerage and drainage schemes, fee could be levied and the only condition was that the same could be levied with the previous consent of the Government and the purposes of the levy of the fee was to raise adequate funds by the LDA from time to time to meet the costs of its schemes by imposing rate fee, etc. The High Court in the impugned judgment has held that as regards levy of sewerage fee under the amended provisions of the Act, the same was valid, therefore, could not be questioned by the petitioners, therefore, their petitions to that extent were dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 12-9-2002 against which leave is sought.
6. Shahid Hamid, learned counsel for one of the petitioners inter alia, contended:--
(a) That the L.D.A. Has already been recovering normal sewerage charges alongwith property tax on the properties owned by the petitioners.
(b) That the Provincial Government permitted levy of additional fee only on industrial establishments and not commercial. Therefore, the petitioners could not have been made liable to pay the additional sewerage charges.
(c) That the sewerage fee could be levied if the L.D.A. Had provided services for the same.
(d) That the sewerage fee levied by the L.D.A. Amounted to imposition of a tax which was not permissible except by an act of the Provincial Government.
(e) That though permission was granted by the Provincial Government as envisaged by section 28 to levy additional sewerage fee but the same was not approved by the L.D.A in its meeting as such, the collection is being made unauthorisedly.
7. None of the contentions have any force. The petitioners concerns are involved in activities of industrial nature or commercial as the case may be and for the purpose of levy of sewerage fee, no distinction could be made. It was clearly pleaded in the written statement in reply to the relevant paragraph that the L.D.A. In its meeting approved the levy of additional sewerage fee in pursuance of permission granted by the Provincial Government, as such, it could not be argued that it was not imposed by the Authority through the resolution, for every official act shall be deemed to have been performed in accordance with law which has not been shown to have not so been performed by mere raising a plea that it was not levied by the Authority through a Resolution.
8. The payment of normal sewerage fee alongwith property tax was not a bar against the charging of additional sewerage fee from commercial and industrial concerns on account of additional load which the sewerage system has to bear on account of abnormal activities and pressure of water, therefore, no exception could be taken legally that the payment of sewerage fee alongwith property tax was a bar to charge additional sewerage fee.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the other petitions have adopted the arguments raised by Mr. Shahid Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court. Mian Nisar Ahmad, learned counsel for one of the petitioners raised additional ground that all the expenses of laying of sewerage pipes etc. Have been borne by the petitioners, therefore, the value of the sewerage fee from the petitioners was not justified.
10. We are afraid, this argument too has no force. Even if the sewerage pipes have been laid by the petitioners, it would not in any manner deprive the Authority under the law to charge additional sewerage fee.
11. The levy of sewerage fee is expressly permitted under section 28 of the L.D.A. Act and by no stretch of law or imagination, can be termed as to tax, as such, the levy of the same is perfectly in accordance with law.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment as regards levy of sewerage fee does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.