1975 PLP 180 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑All these three petitions seek to uphold the validity of enhancement of toll‑tai on public vehicles by the petitioner Municipal Committee, Kasur. It appears that under a Notification dated the 20th of August, 1963, issued under section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, a toll‑tax at the rate of Re. 1 per loaded bus had been imposed with the requisite sanction of the Government of West Pakistan. In 1968 the toll- tax was enhanced from Re. 1 to Rs. 2 per loaded bus. The respondents filed a suit, Inter alts, for a declaration that the levy and imposition of the toll‑tax by the petitioner Committee at the enhanced rate of Rs. 2 was illegal inasmuch as neither the requisite sanction of the competent authority had been obtained nor the order was notified in the manner prescribed under the said Ordinance. The respondent also prayed for a temporary injunction against the petitioners restraining the Municipal Committee from recovering from the respondents the said toll‑tax until the disposal of the suit. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed on the 8th of July, 1972, and the respondents filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Lahore, but it was dismissed on the 6th of October, 1972. The respondents filed separate revision applications before the Lahore High Court and they were partly accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and a temporary injunction was issued restraining the petitioner from recovering from the respondents the additional amount of Re. 1 as toll‑tax, provided they furnished security to the satisfaction of the trial Court to pay the amount due from them in this respect if their suits ultimately failed. The learned Judges, however, observed that this interim injunction would not be effective if the Municipal Committee gave an undertaking within a fortnight to maintain a satisfactory account of the amount received from the respondents and refund the amount so recovered from them in case the respondents succeeded in their suits. The petitioner, instead of giving the requisite undertaking as ordered by the learned Single Judge approached this Court, and challenged the validity of his order. Section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, provides for the levy of taxes, rates, tolls and fees mentioned in the Third Schedule with the previous sanction of the Government. Under section 34, such levy was required to be notified in the official Gazette. It appears that so far as the enhancement of toll‑tax is concerned, neither requirements have been complied with. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not disputed this fact nor has he produced before us papers to show that the requirements were indeed complied with. It is, therefore, obvious that the enhancement was illegal. We asked the learned counsel if the petitioner was still prepared to give the undertaking as ordered by the High Court but the learned counsel failed to take advantage of this opportunity. There is no substance in these petitions, and they are accordingly dismissed.