1969 PLP 320 (SCMR)

S. 7 Any rural area declared by Government under Art. 3(55) of Basic Democracies Order, 1959 to be an urban area can be included in a Municipality. M. H. Khondker, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (S. M. Hossain, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Inayat Hussain, Attorney on behalf of Md. M. R. Khan, Attorney on record for Petitioner (in both the Review Petitions). Siddique Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney on behalf of Zinnur Ahmad Senior Attorney, on record for Respondents (in both the Review Petitions). Dates of hearing : 9th and 10th April 1969. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This disposes of Civil Review Petitions Nos. 5‑D & 6‑D of 1968. Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 145‑D & 146‑D of 1968 which called in question the legality of certain notifications issued by the Government of East Pakistan to include the area of Paschim Solashahar within the limits of the Chittagong Munici pality were dismissed on the 15th of October 1968, on the finding that the action taken by the Government was with lawful authority. The petitioners who own industrial concerns in this area and have consequent upon these notifications been assessed to tax now seek review of the order refusing leave to appeal on the grounds (i) That the provisions of Article 3(55) which empower the Government to declare a rural area as an urban area for the purposes of that order are "executory" and that a separate notification was required to be issued for declaring any rural area as an urban area for the purposes of the Municipal Administration Ordinance ; and (ii) that section 7 of the said Ordinance which empowers the Provincial Government to declare any urban area other than a cantonment ‑to be a municipality ‑ and extend, curtail or otherwise alter the limits thereof is a dead letter as there are no provisions in the Ordinance for its extension to rural areas. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondents that both the petitions are barred by time. The original order was made on the 15th October 1968, and the Review Petitions filed in the Registry on the 16th December 1968. 7 he time prescribed for filing a review petition in Order XXVI, Rule 2, being 30 days the petitions are plainly out of time, but if the period spent in obtaining certified copy of the order of which review is sought is excluded, the petitions would be in time. At the relevant time the rules did not provide for filing certified copy of the order of the Court along with a review petition. The petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to deduct the time spent in obtaining the copy of the order dated the 15th October 1968, but it appears that a practice had grown up in the Registry under which no petition for review was received without being accompanied by certified copy of the order of the Court of which review was sought. This unwarranted practice did not alter the legal position that time spent in obtaining copy of the order of the Court could not be excluded in computing limitation under Order XXVI, Rule 2. Nevertheless it cannot be said that the omission on the part of the petitioners to move the Court within 30 days was due to any negligence on their part. The delay in filing the review petitions is, in the circumstances, condoned. The grounds raised in support of the Review Petitions were not urged at the leave stage. The petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this view alone, but as Mr. Khondker addressed vehement arguments in their support we might as well dispose them of on merits. Frankly speaking we were unable to appreciate the first ground that the provisions of Article 3(55) of the Basic Democracies Order are "executory". It was not disputed that the notification dated the 12th February 1964, issued by the Government of East Pakistan lawfully declared the rural area of Paschim Solashahar an urban area for the purposes of that Order. Similarly the Government issued another notification under rule 4(1) of the East Pakistan Declaration of Municipalities Rules, 1960, declaring its intention to include Paschim Solashahar within the limits of the Chittagong Municipality. By a third notifica tion issued on the 16th August 1965, the Government extended the limits of the Chittagong Municipality to include the area of Paschim Sulashahar which had been earlier declared as urban area under the Basic Democracies Order. Section 7 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance does not contemplate a second notification to be issued under Article 3(55) for the purposes of extending the limits of a municipality to an urban area which was formerly a rural area. The contention that the) provisions of Article 3(55) are executory and a fresh notification under the Municipal Administration Ordinance should have been issued is, therefore, without any substance. The second contention has likewise no force. Section 7 of the‑Municipal Administration Ordinance empower the Provincial Government to declare any urban area to be a municipality and extend, curtail or otherwise alter limits thereof. Any rural area declared as an urban area under the Basic Democracies Order is, therefore, by virtue of the definition clause in section 3(2) of the Municipal Administration Ordinance an urban area for the purposes of extending the limits of a municipality under section 7. The authenticity of the East Pakistan Declaration of Munici palities Rules, 1960, is vouched by section 121 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance which empowers the Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Ordinance. One of the purposes of the Ordinance being extension of the limits of a municipality, the impugned notifications are well within the scope of the Municipal Administration Ordinance. Both the grounds raised in support of these petitions have no merit to call for review of the order of the Court dated the 15th October 1968. The petitions are dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.