1999 PLP 98 (SCMR)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.

This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the interim order dated 30-10-1996 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Miscellaneous No. 3023 of 1996 in Writ Petition No.976 of 1984

2. Leave granting order in this case reads as under:- "Municipal Committee Sahiwal petitioner No. I is stated to have granted warehouse facility to Pakistan Burma Shell Limited (Now Shell Pakistan Limited) respondent No. I for P. 0 - L. Depot. at Sahiwal with effect from 1-7-1982 with the result that respondent was exempt from payment of octroi fee and toll tax. The said facility was later withdrawn by the petitioner committee. Respondent No.1 challenged this action in the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.976 of 1984 which was admitted to regular hearing and by order dated 17-3-1984, operation of the impugned order withdrawing the warehouse facility was suspended. That writ petition is still pending.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the stay order granted by the High Court on 17-3-1984 ceased to have effect on the expiration of six months period as provided in clause (4-A) of Article 199 of the Constitution but on an application (C.M. 3023/96) moved by respondent No. 1 for extension of stay order dated 17-3-1984, learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court by order dated 30-10-1996 has directed that the stay order dated 17-3-1996 shall remain in operation. Learned -counsel relies upon (1) Federation of Pakistan v. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (PLD 1977 SC 397) and (2) Messrs Siddique Trust v. Income Tax Officer and another (1987 CLC 2366) to contend that the stay order issued on 17-3-1984 had ceased to exist after the ? expiry of six months period and, therefore, it could neither be extended nor could it be held to be operative. To consider this contention, leave to appeal is granted to the petitioners and operation of the impugned order is suspended pending the hearing of the appeal which may be heard at an early date on the present record. "

3. The contesting respondent is absent and has been proceeded ex parte vide order dated -31-7-1997. A question of law of great public importance is involved in this case as to whether in view of the provisions contained in clause (4-A) of Article 199 of the Constitution and the dictum laid down in the case of Federation of Pakistan v. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (PLD 1977 SC 397), the stay order issued by the High Court in respect of State property or assessment or collection of public revenue cases to have effect on the expiration of the period of six months following the day on which it is made, unless the case is finally decided or the interim order is withdrawn by the Court earlier.

4. In the instant case, while granting leave operation of the impugned order was suspended. The contesting respondent has not entered appearance and has been proceeded ex parte, as stated above. It appears that he is not interested in extending the stay order issued by the High Court.

5. Be that as it may, in the absence of the respondent it would not be appropriate to record a considered finding on the points raised in the leave granting order. The question shall be decided in some other appropriate cases. However, learned counsel for the appellant prays that a direction be issued to the High Court for expeditious disposal of the writ petition.

6. With a view to protecting the rights of both the parties, we direct the High Court to finally dispose of the writ petition within two months from the receipt of this order, which is pending since 1984. Meanwhile, the impugned order shall remain suspended. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A./M-186/S ??????????? Order accordingly