2000 PLP 1062 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 137‑‑‑Levy of fee on licences‑‑‑Power of Zila Council ‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Zila Council has been given power under the provisions of 5,137, Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 to levy fee on licences, sanctions and permissions granted by the Council, when it is shown that for running a particular business a licence is required to be taken by some provision of law from Zila Council. (c) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 137 & First Sched‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 18 & 199‑ Constitutional petition‑‑‑Levy of fee on licence‑‑‑Demand of licence fee for business not mentioned in First Sched. of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979‑‑‑Petitioner was running a shoe factory and Zila Council demanded licence fee from the petitioner‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Article 18 of the Constitution had provided guarantee to enter upon any lawful trade or business and such guarantee was subject to proviso that Competent Authority may regulate any trade or profession by a licensing system‑‑‑Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 had nowhere provided that the petitioner was under obligation to obtain any licence to run a shoe factory ‑‑‑Zila Council could neither direct the petitioner to obtain licence for running the factory nor could they demand any licence fee‑‑‑Notice issued by Zila Council demanding the fee was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Muhammad Akram Khawaja for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, A.A. ‑G. for Respondent No.

1. Malik Ghulam Rasool for Respondents Nos.2 to

4. Date of hearing: 29th February, 2000. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 raises an important question as to the interpretation of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 particularly section 73, section 137 and the First and Second Schedules thereof.

2. The petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacturing shoes in its Unit situated at Mauza Bath 34‑Kilometres Multan Road, Lahore, since 1966. Respondent No.2 which is Zila Council, constituted under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 issued a notice to the petitioner on 28‑7‑1996 calling upon it to 'obtain a licence on payment of fee of Rs.50,000 per annum for the manufacture of shoes by the petitioner in its factory. This fee has been levied vide Notification bearing No.592, dated 26‑1‑1995, purportedly under sections 137 and 138 of the Punjab Local Government Ordine ice, 1979. The petitioner has challenged the notice, dated 28‑7‑1996 issued by the respondent Zila Council as being without lawful authority.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, direction to issue licence and charge of fee can only be given in respect of dangerous and offensive articles and trades mentioned in the First Schedule to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. He elaborated that as shoe‑making was not one of the trades specified in the First Schedule, the petitioner was under no obligation to obtain a licence or to pay licence fee.

4. Malik Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, relied upon section 137 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the Second Schedule to the Ordinance which authorises the Local Council to charge and levy fee for the licences, permissions and sanctions granted by it. ‑According to the learned counsel, this provision authorises the Local Council to charge licence fee irrespective of the nature of trade, if it is so notified by the Zila Council. Another objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents which is that the petitioner has not availed of the remedy, of appeal provided by the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.

5. Accumulative reading of various provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 would show that licence is required only in A respect of that trade or business which is specified in the First Schedule. Admittedly, shoe‑manufacturing is not one of the trades mentioned in the First Schedule. There is no other provision in the Ordinance which authorises the Local Government to direct a person to obtain licence for running a business or trade, if it does not fall within the ambit of First Schedule to the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. It is correct and as has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that Zila Council has been given power to levy fee on licences, sanctions and permissions granted by the Zila Council by section 137 of the Ordinance but e that provision would come into separation when it is shown that for running a particular business, a licence is required to be taken by some provision of law from the Zila Council. On the other hand, Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 guarantees a fundamental right to a person to enter upon any lawful trade or business, subject to the proviso that the competent Authority may regulate any trade or profession by a licensing system. As already observed, it has no where provided in the Ordinance or the Schedule that the petitioner is under obligation to obtain any licence to C run a shoe factory. In this view of the matter, the respondents can neither direct that the petitioner should obtain licence for running the factory nor can I they demand any licence fee. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the notice, dated 28‑7‑1996 issued by the respondent‑Zila Council is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./E‑2/L Petition allowed