2007 PLP 549 (YLR)

SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.

So far as the legal controversy is concerned, all learned counsel appear to agree that the power to levy and collect tax on advertisements has been conferred upon the respondent No.2, and not a Union Council, under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001. However, under the Advertisement and Usage Bye-Laws, 2003, framed by respondent No.2, the powers of Licensing Authority are stated to have been delegated to Union Council. In the exercise of such power, respondent No.1 proceeded not to renew the licence of the petitioner. Ms. Munawar Sultana has contended that the licences of the petitioners were not renewed owing to the fact that though the licence fee had been substantially increased for the year 2003-2004, the petitioners did not pay such fee even according to the far lesser old rates. A detailed statement of the liability of each of the petitioners, both under the old rates and the new rates, as well as quantum of payment received by respondent No. 1 has been indicated. Mr. Khadim Hussain Abro attempted to show that payments were made by most of the petitioners but it appears quite clearly that the amounts paid by the petitioners have been acknowledged by respondent No.2 and not a single petitioner appears to have liquidated his liability even under the old rates. Learned counsel further argued that the licensing authority i.e. respondent No.2, might be entitled to investigate a new application for grant of licence but so far as the existing hoardings were concerned, the licences ought to have been renewed as a matter of course. Indeed, the contention seems to carry weight. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that a person failing to pay a fee admittedly leviable under the statutory powers, is entitled to approval of licence. For the foregoing reasons, we would dispose of this petition by directing that in case the petitioners deposit the outstanding amount of licence fee, according to the old rates, within two weeks from today with respondent No.2, respondent No.1 will renew their licences promptly. In case a dispute as to the amount outstanding, the same may be resolved at the appropriate level and respondent No.2. As regards payment at the revised rates, Mr. Abro argued that, in any event, no such payment could be recovered unless the revised rates were duly notified in the official Gazette, and Mr. Manzoor Ahmed does not controvert this legal position. We would, therefore, order that the aforesaid rates would only apply prospectively, and in case any payment, according to the new rates, is demanded by the respondents, the petitioners would be free to seek recourse from a Court of law. The petition stands disposed of along with pending appeal. H.B.T./O-3/K Order accordingly.