1990 PLP 1002 (MLD)

(iii) That dangerous and offensive articles and trades could not be notified by bye‑laws unless spelt out by the main statute itself. (iv) That the fees imposed by the bye‑laws are more in the nature of a tax than fees. (v) Earlier bye‑laws in force on the subject did not levy such fees.

7. He relied on the cases reported in P L D 1960 S C 394, P L D 1977 S C 197, P L D 1961 Kar. 349 and A I R 1964 All. 540.

8. Mr. S. M. Muslim Naqvi, the Advocate appearing for the Corporation in reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitions are liable to be dismissed due to following reasons: (i) That the levy of such fees was enforced about 45 years earlier under the Bombay Municipal Act, 1930 and is not a fresh levy. (ii) That the bye‑laws were framed and notified in conformity with procedure laid down by law and rules. (iii) That the petitioners knew full well about the enforcement of bye‑laws in question and were agitating the quantum of levy pressurising the Federal Government through their Association. (iv) That the petitioners have filed delayed petitions. (v) That the levy is in accordance with law.

9. Mr. Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, Advocate appearing for the petitioners has taken exception to the promulgation of the Karachi Municipal Corporation (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Bye‑Laws, 1975 on the ground that the same have been framed and promulgated in utter disregard of the provisions contained in sections 91 and 92 of the Sindh Peoples Local Government Ordinance, 1972. The said by‑laws according to him, suffer from material defect as the condition of previous publication and inviting of objections from the public as required under the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960 was not complied with. According to him, the impugned Bye‑Laws are also inconsistent with the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Rules, 1960 which according to him still continue to hold the field.

10. In exercise of his powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 92 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 the Governor of the erstwhile Province of West Pakistan had promulgated the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Rules, 1960 which were also applicable to Karachi Municipality. 32 Articles listed under rule 2 of the said Rules were deemed to be dangerous or offensive trades for the purpose of section 92 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. Item No. 9 provided that cleaning, dyeing, preparing or manufacturing by any process whatever clothes or yarn in indigo and other colours shall be deemed to be dangerous or offensive trades for the said purpose. These rules were promulgated under the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 which continued to be in force till the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 was promulgated. The Ordinance of 1972 repealed the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960. It however saved the levy of any taxes or fees under the repealed Ordinance and so also the rules framed thereunder. So far as such levies and the rules framed thereunder were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Ordinance the same will be considered to have been taken under it. Section 14 of the Ordinance of 1972 provided that a corporation, a People's Municipality, and a People's Town Committee can undertake such functions as are mentioned in Parts I and lI of Schedule II appended thereto. Schedule II comprised of two parts, Part I specifically enumerated the functions of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation while Part II refers to the functions of People's Municipality. Paragraph 5 under the sub heading of "Public Safety" of Part II of the Schedule provided for regulating the Dangerous and Offensive Trades. This function according to Part II of the Schedule could only be performed by People's Municipality and not by Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. In view of such provisions having been made in the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 it cannot be said that after its promulgation the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trade) Rules, 1960 continued to be in force by virtue of section 4 of the Sindh Peoples Local Government Ordinance, 1972 so far it related to Karachi Municipal Corporation. On 1st May, 1976 the Sindh People's Local Government (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976 was published and enforced whereby section 14 of the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 and Schedule II of the said Ordinance was substituted. Section 14 was substituted by new section which reads as under: "

14. Functions of the Corporation and Municipal Committee:‑‑A corporation or a People's Municipal Committee, subject to rules and directions given by Government and within the limits and funds at his disposal undertake any of the functions given in Schedule‑II, Part I of Schedule II was altogether omitted while heading of Part II was substituted as under: "Schedule 11. (see section 14) Functions of the Corporation and Municipal Committees.

11. In view of such a change having been made in the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 both the Corporations and the Peoples Municipal Committees could perform the functions mentioned in Part II of Schedule II of the original Ordinance. It will thus be seen that the powers to deal with dangerous articles and trades was once again available to Karachi Metropolitan Corporation after the amendment referred to herein above. It appears that after such amendment the Karachi Municipal Corporation did not frame Bye‑Laws to deal with the trade of dangerous and offensive articles. The Government of Sindh framed certain Bye‑Laws on the subject and required the K. M. Corporation to adopt the same. The Karachi Municipal Corporation by their Resolution No. 1855 passed on 8‑7‑1976 adopted such Bye‑Laws and published the same in "Akhbar‑e‑Baldia" of 19th August, 1976 published by them. These bye‑laws were in fact, adopted in terms of subsection (3) of section 91 of the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972. As such bye‑laws were not framed by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation provision contained in subsections (2) and (3) of section 92 of the Sindh Peoples Local Government Ordinance, 1972 requiring publication etc. will not be applicable. The bye‑laws are required to be published in such a manner as in the opinion of the Authority making them is best adopted for informing the residents of the local area under section 92(4) of the said Ordinance.

12. Annexure P 1 annexed to the petition itself is a copy of publication of these bye‑laws, in "Akhbar‑e‑Baldia," the official publication of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. These bye‑laws clearly show that the same were adopted by the Karachi Municipal Corporation and published for general information.

13. In view of above, no exception can be taken to the validity of the Karachi Municipal Corporation (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Bye -Laws, 1975.

14. The notification bearing No. MC‑1/15(16)/74, dated 29th June, 1976 published in the Sindh Government Gazette of 22nd July, 1976 whereby the Government of Sindh had sanctioned the levy of licence fee for the purpose of Karachi Municipal Corporation (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Bye‑Laws, 1975 at the rates mentioned in this Schedule given thereunder has also been questioned by this petition. Mr. Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this notification is also ultra vires of the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972.

15. This notification dated 29th June, 1976 itself indicates that the levy of licence fee under the Bye‑Laws was sanctioned under sections 71 and 72 of the Sindh People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 read with Item No. 22 of para. 3 of Schedule VII of that Ordinance and rule 7 of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960. Rule 7 of the West Pakistan Municipal Committees (Imposition of Taxes) Rules, 1960 enables the Government to consider the taxation proposals of a Municipal Corporation and is authorised to sanction it with or without modifications as deemed fit. Since the sanction was accorded in terms of rule 7 and there being no averment alleging breach of the rules it can be presumed that the taxation proposals were in fact properly processed in terms of sections 71 and 72 of the Ordinance of 1972. No allegation has been made in the petition itself to indicate if the Karachi Municipal Corporation had not complied with the procedure laid down by the Ordinance and the rules. Mr. Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity in such notification.

16. The third notification bearing No. MC‑1/15(16)/74, dated 30th January, 1980 whereby the Government of Sindh in exercise of its power conferred by section 62 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 had revised the licence fees for the purpose of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (Dangerous and Offensive Articles and Trades) Bye‑laws, 1975 has also been impugned in this petition. It appears that due to representations made by the petitioners and others the Government of Sindh reconsidered the amount of fee levied under the said rules and substantially reduced it. This notification indeed is a notification beneficial to the petitioners. The Government of Sindh was indeed competent to revise the rates of fees under section 62 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Government of Sindh by the third notification mentioned hereinabove have substantially cut down the rates of licence fee and it can no more be said that the levy at such rates is in any manner unreasonable particularly when the petitioners themselves have not cared to place any facts or data before us which could indicate that such fees charged at such rates are in any manner unreasonable beyond the requirements of the Karachi Municipal Corporation or in any way out of proportion to the services rendered by it in the area. The contention of the Advocate for the petitioners on this point has, therefore, no force.

17. In view of the foregoing reasons, we see no force in the present petitions. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./G‑164/K Petitions dismissed.