P L D 1996 Karachi 515 (PLP)

MAMOON KAZI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was highest bidder in open auction and was, therefore, given contract for recovery and collection of octroi on behalf of the Municipal Committee, Tando Allahyar for the year 1983‑84 effective from 1‑7‑1983 in pursuance of the terms and conditions of the contract. The petitioner paid the lease money in 11 instalments. It may be pointed out that on the representation of respondent No.3, who was the predecessor of the petitioner, the then Chairman, Municipal Committee allowed remission of Rs.3,00,000 to the said contractor. The case of the petitioner is that out of this amount Rs.1,00,000 was paid to respondent No.3 out of Municipal funds and for the remaining Rs.2,00,000 the petitioner was asked to pay the same to respondent No.3 and claim adjustment of the said amount from the Municipal 'Committee. The petitioner claims to have paid the said amount to respondent by 13‑9‑1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that thereafter respondent No.2, who succeeded the then Chairman, Municipal Committee by a Resolution passed by the Municipal Committee called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.2,00,000, which according to the said Resolution had illegally been paid to respondent No.3. The petitioner thereafter appealed before the Appellate Tribunal Local Council Sindh but without any success, hence the present petition. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and

2. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents. It may be pointed out at the very outset that Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada, has failed to invite our attention to any documentary evidence in regard to payment of Rs.2,00,000 by the petitioner to respondent No.3 in pursuance of the said Resolution of the Municipal Committee. However, Mr. Zahiruddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 has invited our attention to the application which had been submitted by respondent No.3 to the Chairman, Municipal Committee requesting for remission of the said amount and the note of the Chairman thereon recommending granting of such remission to respondent No.3. This document shows that the matter was not put up before the Committee in a meeting but signatures of 11 members thereof were obtained by the Chairman out of a total number of 22 members and thus the remission was allowed to respondent No.3. This power purportedly was exercised by the Chairman under section 45 (4) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. The said section gives power to the Government to modify the contract which power was delegated by the Government to the Council, thus empowering it to fix the contract price even without inviting offers by auction etc. It appears that the matter in regard to granting of remission requested ' by respondent No.3 was put up before the Government by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, who was directed to take a decision in the matter from the Council. However, instead of putting up the matter before the Council, the Chairman only obtained signatures of 11 members by way of approval. It is pertinent to point out that thereafter when the former Chairman was succeeded by a new Chairman, respondent No.2, the matter appears to have been re‑opened and the Committee by its Resolution dated 30‑11‑1983 declared the action of the former Chairman as illegal and violative of the provisions of law and consequently it served two notices upon the, petitioner dated 27‑10‑1983 and 23‑11‑1983 respectively, demanding payment of the said amount from him. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out if the action taken by the successor Municipal Committee was illegal in any manner. The learned counsel only referred to rule 4 of the Sindh Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1982. This rule only provides that an appeal shall lie to a Tribunal from an order of Mayor or Chairman. The period of limitation provided for such appeal is 30 days from the date of the order appealed against. In our view, reference by the learned counsel to this rule is completely misconceived as the rule is not attracted under the circumstances of the present case. The action of the former Chairman was struck down by the New Committee as illegal for which it was not required to invoke the provisions of rule 4 at all. We do not find anything wrong with the action taken by the successor Committee in pursuance of which the petitioner has been asked to pay the said amount to the Municipal Committee. In the result, we find no force in this petition, which is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. H. B. T. /A‑5 I /K Petition dismissed.