2006 PLP 1515 (CLC)
IMAM ELAHI — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, SHAHPUR SADDAR DISTRICT
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1515 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IMAM ELAHI — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, SHAHPUR SADDAR DISTRICT |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1515 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1515 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1515 (CLC) (IMAM ELAHI — Petitioner Versus ADMINISTRATOR, TOWN COMMITTEE, SHAHPUR SADDAR DISTRICT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan for Petitioner.
- Fauzi Zafar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Scope
Stance as canvassed in the constitutional petition, rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence
Such exercise could not be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Art.199 of Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.
Petitioner was awarded contract of collection of octroi tax, toll tax and Adda fee from 1-7-1999 to 30-6-2000 by the Administrator Town Committee, Shahpur Sadar, District Sargodha and he having himself entered into the contract abided himself to pay salaries of the employees of the respondent deployed with him during contract period, prayed through instant constitutional petition return of this amount already paid by him, on the ground that Government of the Punjab by notification dated 1-7-1999 abolished the octroi tax, hence he was not liable to pay but was forced to make payment. Stance of the petitioner was denied by the learned counsel for the respondent with the submission that he was not only holding contract of collection of octroi tax and continued with deployment of employees of the respondents during the entire contract period, hence he cannot be shown any indulgence.
2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. Thes canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others PLD 1964 SC 636 up to date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCMR
618. Besides this constitutional handicap, by devolution of power to lowest ebb through Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and by change of District Management, none of the respondents survive, by operation of law, thus, instant petition cannot proceed. Petitioner may, if so advised, have recourse to the Civil Courts by filing a suit where the disputed facts shall also be settled after recording of evidence. As far as instant petition is concerned, it deserves no further adjudication, for the reasons noted above, hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./I-18/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.