YLR 2001

2001 PLP 3145 (YLR)

EMIRATES INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES OF U.A.E. and 29 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 6 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
Civil Petition No. 122 of 1998, decided on 8th May, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslant Jafri, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2001 PLP 3145 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslant Jafri, JJ
Parties EMIRATES INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES OF U.A.E. and 29 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 6 others — Respondents
Primary Law Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act (X of 1996)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 3145 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act (X of 1996) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 3145 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslant Jafri, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 3145 (YLR) (EMIRATES INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES OF U.A.E. and 29 others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Defence, Islamabad and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act (X of 1996)

Representation

  • Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for Petitioners.
  • Suleman Habibullah, Addl, A.-G. for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
  • Abdul Karim Khan for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
  • Muhammad Yasin Kiyani for Respondent No. 7.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 3 & 9

Cantonments Act (11 of 1924), S.217

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Demand of water and conservancy charges

Karachi Water and Sewerage Board through notice demanded water and conservancy charges from the petitioners calculated on the basis of prescribed charges for retail water supply-- Premises of the petitioners were located within the territorial limits of "Karachi Cantonment Board" and not within the limits of "Karachi Metropolitan Corporation "-- Jurisdiction of "Karachi Water and Sewerage Board" under provisions of S.3(3) of "Karachi Water and Sewerage Board" Act, 1996 extended to the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, unless it was extended beyond such limit by a Notification issued by Government of Sindh

In absence of Notification extending the jurisdiction of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board to areas falling within the limits of Karachi Cantonment Board in which the premises of the petitioners were located, it could be concluded that the jurisdiction of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, had not been lawfully extended to the area where the premises of the petitioners were located-- Cantonment Board, under 5.217 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 was to arrange supply of pure water for domestic use in the area under its control

Demand notice addressed to the petitioners was declared without lawful authority by the High Court.

Judgment & Decree

The petitioners appear to be aggrieved by certain bills from the respondent No.5 (KW&CB), whereby water and conservancy charges calculated on the basis of prescribed charges for retail water supply, have been demanded. The admitted position is that the premises in possession of the petitioners are located within the territorial limits of respondent No.2 (Karachi Cantonment Board) and not those of the respondent No.7 (Karachi Metropolitan Corporation) under section 3(3) of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 extends to the limits of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation unless it is extended beyond such limit by a Notification issued by the respondent No.3 (Government of Sindh). Neither of the respondents have been able to place any Notification extending the jurisdiction of the respondent No.5 to areas falling within the limits of respondent No.2, despite several opportunities granted. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that the jurisdiction of respondent No.5 had not been lawfully extended to the area where the petitioners' premises are located. It may be added that under section 217 of the Cantonments Act, it is the duty of a Cantonment Board in every Cantonment where sufficient supply of pure water for domestic use does not already exist to provide or, arrange for the provision of such supply. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has alternatively argued that the respondent No.5 (KW&SB) could only claim charges for bulk supply of potable water from the respondent No.2 (Karachi Cantonment Board) and not from individual consumers. Reliance is placed on section 9 of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act, 1996, the relevant provisions whereof read as under:

"(1) The Board shall be responsible for bulk production of potable water and its distribution in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) _______________________________________ (3) The Board shall arrange retail distribution of water within its jurisdiction excluded the areas receiving water supply through Constituent Bodies. (4) The Board may, subject to availability, supply water to any person or authority in the area or areas notified under this Act. (5) The Board shall continue to make bulk water supply to the Constituent Bodies at such rates and subject to such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Board. (6) __________________________________________ (7) __________________________________________ Explanation.

The term 'Consti tuent Bodies' shall mean and include the Authority, Karachi Port Trust, Cantonment Board of Karachi, Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate, Karachi, Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. Defence Services or any other body or organization notified by Government. " It appears quite clear from the above quoted provisions that bulk water supply is to be made to "Constitutent Bodies" who in turn are responsible for retail supply in their respective areas. The Board is required to arrange retail distribution only in these areas which are not receiving water supply through Constituent Bodies. This is augmented from the fact that separate rates of bulk supply and retail supply have been laid down in the Sindh Government Notification, dated 4-12 -1996. Indeed the Karachi Cantonment Board falls within the ambit of the expression Constitutent Bodies in terms of the explanation to section 9(7). Nevertheless it is admitted that unlike some other Constitutent Bodies the area coming in its jurisdiction falls outside the limit of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. Reading sections 3 and 9 together, we are of the view that supply of potable water could only be made to areas in a Cantonment after a Notification under section 3(3) was issued so as to bring such area within the jurisdiction of the Board and therefore, bulk water could be made to the Cantonment area. It is, therefore, quite clear that under no circumstances could the respondent No.5 make supply on retain basis or collect charges on annual rental value basis. For the foregoing reasons we would declare the demand notices addressed to the petitioners to be without lawful authority and at the same time direct the respondent No.5, which is required to perform its duties in the public interest and within the specified limits of its authority, to disconnect the water supply made to the petitioners without loss of time. Likewise the respondent No.2 is directed to make appropriate arrangements for water supply, and if necessary, approach the respondent No.3 for issuance of a proper Notification. H. B. T./E-10/K Petition allowed/order accordingly.