P L D 2012 Lahore 349 (PLP)

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

Through this single judgment we intend to dispose of I.C.A. No.553 of 2011 along with other connected I.C.As. Nos.519, 520, 545, 565, 549, 530, 523, 583, 595, 524, 642 of 2011 and Writ Petitions Nos.21506, 23414, 21137, 20978, 20963, 21275, 27087, 24129 and 24130 of 2011.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 2-6-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a number of writ petitions seeking alternate accommodation for milch cattle kept within metropolitan city limits of Lahore in terms of Clause 2(4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance"). The significant point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that under Clause 2(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Ordinance the declaration by a local government of any part of its local area as a prohibited zone does not by itself operate to oust or exclude milch cattle that are already being kept within such zone. The prohibition comes into effect by a general or special notice issued under Clause 2(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Ordinance whereby any person keeping or maintaining cattle within the prohibited zone is proscribed from doing so. In the present case the appellants contend that a special notice with regard to certain union councils in the metropolitan city limits has not been issued to implement the prohibitory limits. Consequently, the respondents are in error to exclude and extern cattle from the limits of the Lahore Metropolitan Area through various indiscriminate and coercive actions taken against the appellants. It is further alleged that the respondents cannot forcibly extern the appellants' cattle without first providing/ accommodating the affected persons in new cattle colonies as envisaged in Clause 2(4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Ordinance. 3 Learned counsel for the respondents has explained that the precursor to the Sixth Schedule was Section 65 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Under the said statutory provision public notice issued on 24-2-1983 by the Mayor Lahore Metropolitan Corporation was published in the Daily Nawa-e-Waqt whereby the keeping and maintaining of cattle within the limits including Zone No.1, Zone No.2, Zone No.3 and Zone No.4 of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation was prohibited. The limits of Lahore Municipal Corporation had been specified earlier by a notification issued on 11-8-1979 by the Commissioner Lahore. It is common ground that the said notification covers the different areas in which the appellants keep their cattle.

4. Consequent upon the said notification and public notice, the provincial government established two cattle colonies in terms of Clause 2(4) of the Sixth Schedule to the Ordinance: one at Rakh Chandra and the other at Harbanspura. Both cattle colonies are claimed by the respondents to have accommodated the existing gowala/milk sellers i.e. owners of the cattle kept within the Metropolitan City limits. The proof of such fact, according to him, is that there is no pending case or representation or appeal of an affected gowala/milk seller from that time seeking accommodation within a cattle colony. Accordingly, he contends that all the appellants before this Court are persons who have either returned to the prohibited zone or have surreptitiously started fresh businesses after the prohibition of 1983 came into effect. Consequently, he submits that there is no basis of the claim of the appellants to be accommodated in new cattle colonies.

5. With respect to another objection portraying the subsequent notification by the respondents district government, including the one dated 6-4-2008, as being a notice under Clause 2(2) of the Sixth Schedule, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said notification is meant to be otherwise: its heading with the word 'intaba' meaning 'warning' demonstrates that the said notification is not intended as a public notice in terms of Clause 2(2) of the Sixth Schedule to the Ordinance.

6. During the arguments learned counsel in Writ Petition No.24130/2011 has also referred to a notice dated 16-1-2000 issued by the Chief Corporation Officer inviting objections from public to the grant of licences for keeping milch cattle in the city area. It is submitted on the basis of the said notice that in the year 2000 there were areas of Lahore where milch cattle were permitted to be kept as licensed animals. When confronted with the said objection, learned counsel for the respondents states that the said notice has no nexus with the Sixth Schedule but merely invites objections to licensing of milch cattle in certain parts of the metropolitan area. It is nobody's case that any of the appellants is a licensee from the area advertised. Furthermore, the said notice was not asserted before the learned Single Judge. Equally, without disclosure of the proceedings consequent upon the publication of the said notice we cannot opine upon the veracity and effect of the same.

7. We have considered the arguments led by both the sides. The judgment given by the learned Single Judge carefully considers the main point based on Clause 2(4) of the Sixth Schedule regarding the claim for alternate accommodation being provided to the affectees of a prohibited zone. It is clear from the record that the appellants before this Court are not affectees of the original prohibition created in 1983 as a consequence of which alternate accommodation was provided by the respondents in two cattle colonies. The appellants are either new vendors of milk in the city and, therefore, new owners of milch animals or returnees from the cattle colonies. In other words these persons have started business after implementation of the prohibition. Consequently, to the mind of this Court they are not entitled to alternate accommodation as prayed. In so far as certain outlying areas of Lahore Metropolitan Corporation are concerned where either the prohibition is not in effect or where the respondents have allowed licensed activities for milch animals, the respondents have maintained a policy of strict reserve and scant disclosure.

8. Although the Court had asked for a map showing the areas of Lahore where, according to the respondents, milch animals/cattle may be kept, the respondents have failed to provide the same. It cannot be questioned that the appellants who are citizen are doing a lawful trade and business as milch vendors. Accordingly they have a right to know the places where they can conduct their lawful business activities. This is necessary for them to prevent exploitation at the hands of those agencies that are enforcing the impugned prohibition. Consequently, whilst holding that the appellants are not entitled to be accommodated in a cattle colony, it is equally incumbent upon us to hold that the respondents are duty bound to notify the areas where milch animals/cattle may be kept by the persons engaged in the said trade. Therefore, the respondents are directed to issue a notification in this respect at the earliest possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The notification shall indicate by description and by drawing, the areas of Lahore in which milch animals may be lawfully kept and maintained by their keepers and the means, including passage, by which milk may be brought to the city. Meanwhile the milch animal owners working within the authorized areas shall not be hindered or prevented from carrying on their lawful trade.

9. With the above observations, this appeal along with other I.C.As and writ petitions mentioned in the first para of this judgment are dismissed. M.H./N-17/L Order accordingly.