2003 PLP 1030 (CLC)

(2) Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. v. Union- Council and others 1991 CLC 354. (3) Sahibzada Sharafuddin v. Town Committee Pindighee 1984 CLC 1517.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents Nos. l and ,2 submits that respondent No. l had issued a public notice qua the increase of the rates in question in Daily Newspaper "Khabra'in" on 22nd September, 2001 which is attached with the report and parawise comments as Annexure R/l. The.petitioner and other aggrieved persons filed objections before respondent No.l. Respondent No.l/competent authority. considered the objections of the petitioner and others after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner. Originally the proposal of increase was in case of Wagon Rs.3 per day to Rs.25 per day and in case of bus Rs.8 per day to Rs.50 per day. The same were reduced from Rs.25 to 20 and Rs.50 to Rs.30 per day respectively. Respondent No.l also got the approval from the District Regional Transport Authority on 25-6-2002. The contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner that approval was secured after filing the writ petition, has no force as the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court on .26-6-2002. He further submits that the District Regional Transport Authority has also taken a stand in report and parawise filed by the District Regional Transport Authority in para. 5 that the competent authority i.e. D.C.O./Chairman of the District Regional Transport Authority, Sialko', has approved to enhance the rate of Adda fee to be charged from the vehicles operating from the ' C' Class General Bus Stand, Daska keeping, in view the recent wave of increasing the rates of essential commodities, wages of labourers and particularly the increasing of raw materials for the provision of amenities at the said General Bus S f, . ' .: the larger interest of general travelling public.

4. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional advocate-General submits that competent authority approved the enhanced rates on the request of respondent No.l after; applying his independent mind. Respondent No.l has pxovided proper hearing to the petitioner and disposed of the objections as is evident from reply of para. 6 filed by respondent No.l. He further submits that petitioner has alternative remedy to file an appeal against the order of respondent No.l before the higher authorities under the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 by raising all legal and factual objections.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

6. Without adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate-General has a force and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the following judgments:-- Raja Mehmood's case 1994 SCMR 1484, Raja Ramzan's case 1994 MLD 930, ICI Pakistan's case 1993 MLD 32, Kh. Abdul Waheed's case PLD 1978 Lah. 811, Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC

246. The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by my learned brother the then Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J. in Writ Petition N.o.4174 of 1998 and laid down the following principle:--, "There is recent tendency to file Constitution petition without exhausting remedies under the statute. This recent trend is dangerous. The Honourable Supreme Court clearly held in, the case reported as Syed Sabir Shah and others v. Shah Muhammad Khan PLD 1995. SC 66; Collector Customs, Karachi v. New Electronic (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 1994 SC 363 and Riffat Askari v. The State PLD 1997 Lah.

285. The judgments cited by the learned counsel' of the petitioner are distinguished in facts and law as the question of maintainability was not raised and decided in the cited judgments.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the controversy in somewhat similar circumstances the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the following principle -in the case Messrs Aslam Traders v. Asghar Ali Tahir and others 2000 SCMR

65. The relevant observation is as under:-- "In consequence, .the petitioners are allowed to avail remedy of appeal before the proper forum within 20 days from today, which, if filed, the said forum shall given benefit as regards delay of the period during which writ petitions remained pending before the High Court and shall decide the appeal on merits as well as the prayer for interim relief Meanwhile, no coercive measures will be `taken against the petitioners for a period of 20 days from today to enable them to approach the appropriate forum. "

8. Keeping in view the guidelines , by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner is directed to avail the alternative remedy within 20 days from today, by filing the appeal before the Appellate Forum/Competent Authority and the Appellate Forum/Competent Authority is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner strictly in accordance with law on merits and shall not dismiss the appeal of the legal heirs of petitioner as time barred. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.