1990 PLP 639 (SCMR)
Messrs SHIFA MEDICO‑‑Petitioner Versus THE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION OF LAHORE
| Citation | 1990 PLP 639 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs SHIFA MEDICO‑‑Petitioner Versus THE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION OF LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 639 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 639 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Javid lqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 639 (SCMR) (Messrs SHIFA MEDICO‑‑Petitioner Versus THE METROPOLITAN CORPORATION OF LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Zia Ullah, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5th November, 1988 in Win. Petition No.5882 of 1988). ‑‑‑Ss.153 to 158‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. IR5(3)‑‑‑Dispute relating to charge, of octroi as assessed by respondent authority‑‑‑Petitioner's Constitutional petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that octroi fee having been assessed by a junior functionary, he failed to bring the matter before the higher functionaries or before the authority itself; nor the complaint was made to any other higher authority‑‑‑Except for documents showing charge of octroi by lower functionary of respondent authority, there was no determination by any higher functionary about the objection, raised by the petitioner for the reason that none was approached before approaching the High Court‑‑‑Petitioner's objection was that after the High Court judgment, he had approached the concerned authority, but the matter had been referred to the Local Taxation functionary for report and/or action, which in his view should not have been sent down but straightaway examined‑‑‑Held, higher functionary was not estopped from seeking assistance from lower co‑ordinate functionary in the form of report and/or opinion as the same was procedural formality‑‑‑No justification was thus made out for interference by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's writ petition. It had arisen out of the charge of Octroi by the respondents' side on a commodity brought within the limits of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation. Learned counsel has stated that a Clerk of respondent No.2, who is lessee/agent of respondent No.1, took the action impugned before the High Court and further that the matter was not brought before either the higher functionaries of respondent No.2 and/or respondent No.1, nor the complaint was made to any other higher authority. Learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the writ petition amongst others made the following observation :‑‑ "One of the principles governing the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by this Court is that it would like to know the view of the subordinate Tribunal or the Authority before whom the matter or grievance was agitated in terms of the statute out of which the impugned proceedings arose." It was also noticed that the provisions contained in sections 153 to 158 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, put the Government under obligation to attend to the grievances like the one agitated in the High Court. It is a fact that except for documents showing the charge of the Octroi by a lower functionary of respondent No.2 there was no determination by any higher functionary about the objections raised by the petitioners. The reason being that none was approached before approaching the High Court. Learned counsel has explained that after the High Court judgment the petitioners have approached the concerned authority, but the matter has been referred to the Local Taxation functionary for report and/or action. In this behalf he thinks that the case should not have been sent down and that the petitioners' grievances should have been straightaway examined. All these are procedural formalities. In a case like the present one, there is nothing to prevent the higher functionary from seeking assistance from lower co‑ordinate functionary in the form of report and/or opinion. After hearing the learned counsel, at some length, we find no justification for interference. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is refused. A.A./S‑433/S Leave refused.